X 

m 
> 


HF 

ITJ5 


H 
x 
m 

m 


05 

o 

H 
X 


-J 

U\ 

X 


THE  NEW  SOUTH 


THE  DEMOCRATIC  POSITION  ON  THE  TARIFF. 


Speech  of  (jon.  James  Pjielan, 

OF   MEMPHIS,  TENN. 

DEMOCRATIC  NOMINEE  FOR  CONGRESS 
IN  THE  TENTH  CONGRESSIONAL  DISTRICT  OF  TENNESSEE, 

DELIVERED  AT  COVINGTON,  TENN., 

On  the  2d  of  October,  1886. 


PUBLISHED  BY  REQUEST. 


S.  C.  To< 


MEMPHIS: 
Printers  and  Lithographers,   276  Seco 

1886. 


•ANCHO* 


SPEECH  BY  MR.  PHELAN, 

AT  COVINGTON,  TENN. 


Fi:i  i.<      i         BNfi  01  Tipton  County: 

It  affords  me  genuine  pleasure  to  be  brought  face  to  face 
with  a  Tiptoo  county  audience.  It  is  here  that  I  first  met 
a  spirit  of  kindly  appreciation — it  was  here  that  I  made 
my  first  friends  beyond  the  limits  of  my  own  county.  The 
erous  support  which  the  Democracy  of  this  county  ac- 
corded me,  extended  me  a  helping  hand  when  I  was  just 
struggling  to  my  feet,  and  in  the  desperate  struggle  for  the 
nomination  which  lias  just  ended,  it  is  to  me  cause  of  pride 
add  gratification  that  at  all  times  my  most  zealous  oppo- 
nents conceded  me  an  overwhelming  majority  of  your 
county.  To  have  been  nominated  at  all  was  a  great  honor, 
but  to  have  been  nominated  by  acclamation,  after  having 
been  opposed  by  three  such  able  gentlemen  as  successively 
retired  from  the  field  of  contest,  adds  to  the  honor  an  ad- 
ditional responsibility — a  responsibility  the  demands  of 
which  I  hope  so  to  meet  as  to  bring  no  harm  to  the  Dem- 
ocratic party  and  no  mortification  to  the  door  of  my  friends. 

1  have  been  requested  to  make  some  speeches  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  tariff  before  the  beginning  of  the  joint  discus- 
sion between  my  Republican  opponent,  the  present  member 
of  Congress  from  this  district,  and  myself.  A  lack  of  time 
prevents  me  from  acceding  more  than  partially  to  this  re- 
quest. But  conceiving  that  there  is  not  as  general  an  un- 
derstanding among  Democrats  of  the  Democratic  position 
on  this  question  as  there  should  be,  I  have  determined  to 
make  at  least  one  eftort  to  set  forth  at  length  what  I  be- 
lieve to  be  that  position.  I  speak  as  the  Democratic  nom- 
inee to  Democrats.  I  wish  to  show  exactly  where  we  do 
stand  on  a  question,  the  platform  utterances  upon  which 
are  said  to  be  so  vague  and  undecided. 


2 

Before  however  taking  up  this  subject,  I  wish  to  give  an 
answer  to  a  question  which  was  propounded  to  me  by  a 
Tipton  county  friend,  an  old  farmer,  on  the  day  of  the  nom- 
inating convention.  He  said  to  me,  "  I  am  not  certain  that 
I  know  exactly  what  is  meant  by  the  phrase,  the  '  New 
South.'  They  say  you  are  a  progressive  Democrat — a  man 
of  the  '  New  South.'  Now  tell  me  what  this  means  ?"  I 
promised  him  an  explanation,  and  by  way  of  prelude  to  my 
speech  I  shall  make  an  attempt  to  do  so  to-day.  Of  course 
I  do  not  say  that  I  am  an  exponent  of  this  idea.  I  do  say 
however  that  I  wish  to  be. 

THE    NEW    SOUTH. 

It  is  always  difficult  to  explain  a  subject  by  definitions. 
Illustrations  are  in  the  main  easier  and  more  satisfactory. 
My  definition  would  be  this :  That  the  phrase  of  the  "  New 
South  "  was  intended  to  embody  the  idea  of  the  social  and 
industrial  changes  which  have  taken  place  since  the  war, 
as  well  as  the  spirit  of  enterprise  which  perfected  these 
changes.  It  is  the  liberalized  state  of  mind  which  recog- 
nizes that  a  new  order  of  things  has  come  in  since  the  war, 
and  which,  full  of  a  broad  patriotism,  seeks  to  adapt  itself 
heartily  and  earnestly  to  these  things.  It  is  the  manifest- 
ation in  all  walks  of  life  and  in  all  undertakings  of  the 
progressive  spirit.  It  means  new  methods  and  more  highly 
developed  modes  of  thought  and  action.  We  live  in  cer- 
tain social  environments  as  we  live  in  a  circumambient 
atmosphere.  This  surrounds  all  things  and  all  beings.  Now 
the  currents  which  fill  the  sails,  and  push  the  barges  of 
commerce  and  turn  the  mills  upon  the  great  plains  and 
keep  pure  and  fresh  the  world  in  which  we  live,  are  illus- 
trative of  the  social  and  political  currents  which  make  the 
New  South.  Take  two  men  standing  at  the  same  point, 
but  on  opposite  sides  of  a  rail  or  "  worm  "  fence.  One 
looks  out  from  a  very  acute  angle — the  other  from  a  very 
obtuse  or  wide  angle.  The  New  South  tries  to  look  at 
things  from  such  an  angle  as  will  include  as  much  as  pos- 
sible. 

In  the  farmer  it  means  improved  methods  of  agriculture, 
improved  agricultural  implements,  diversified  crops,  exper- 


3 

iments  such  a>  Funnan  made,  the  reading  of  agricultural 
journals,  a  ready  contentment  with  his  1  * » t  bat  an  eager  de> 
sire  to  make  the  moat  out  of  it.  a  Liberal  treatment  of  his 

hired  labor,  a  generous  sympathy  with  those  more  unfort- 
unate than  himself,  the  education  of  hie  children  and  an 
honest  pride  of  character.  It  means  bees  and  Brown  Leg- 
horn and  Plymouth  Rock  chickens,  and  fruit  trees  and 
Holsteiii  or  Jersey  or  Short-Horn  cattle,  and  grasses  and 
meadows  on  farms  whose  owners  have  been  ruined  by 
what  L  have  often  called  the  three  0*8,  corn,  cotton  and 
commissions. 

In  the  lawyer  it  means  the  spirit  that  rises  above  case 
learning  and  that  goes  into  the  literature  of  his  profession 
audthe  philosophy  of  its  development — the  spirit  that  holds 
high  the  standard  of  professional  honor  and  professional 
excellence. 

In  the  physician  it  means  something  higher  than  a  hap- 
hazard diagnosis  and  the  index  of  the  Materia  Medica — it 
means  keeping  abreast  with  the  rapid  rush  of  experiment 
that  from  Vienna  to  Philadelphia,  is  changing  his  profes- 
sion from  a  Black  Art  to  a  Science. 

In  the  merchant  it  means  a  spirit  of  enterprise,  a  strict 
observance  of  the  laws  of  business,  an  eschewing  of  the 
sentimental  phase  in  its  conduct,  the  development  of  new 
avenues  of  trade,  public  spirit,  and  an  absence  of  specula- 
tion. 

In  a  Democratic  statesman,  it  means  perhaps  more  than 
I  can  adequately  explain  to  you.  In  him  it  should  find  its 
highest  and  most  practical  exponent.  It  means  first  of  all, 
thorough  knowledge  of  and  sympathy  with  the  history  and 
traditions  of  his  party.  It  was  in  the  old  days  of  chivalry 
required  of  one  who  sought  the  honors  of  Knighthood  that 
he  should  fast  and  pray,  and  that  he  should  go  and  pass  the 
night  alone  in  a  cathedral,  holding  communion  with  the 
fountain-head  of  chivalry,  purity  and  truth.  I  take  it  that 
every  Democrat,  before  he  dons  the  armor  of  his  party, 
should  return  to  the  Temple  of  Democracy  where  the  High 
Priests  have  officiated,  and  there  at  the  Altar  hold  com- 
munion with  the  Great  Spirit  that  pervades  all  Democratic 


institutions.  In  this  spirit  and  thus  equipped,  I  hold  he  is 
ready  to  come  forth  upon  the  field  of  battle,  the  Rising  Sun 
upon  his  shield,  the  Knight  of  the  New  South. 

But  the  essential  requisite  of  this  idea  is  that  of  practi- 
cal statesmanship  as  opposed  to  sentimental.  It  means  a 
desire  to  accomplish  practical  legislation  and  to  leave  verb- 
iage in  abeyance.  It  means  work,  and  not  rhetoric.  It 
means  an  earnest  desire  to  know  the  truth  and  a  fearless 
determination  to  follow  its  dictates,  but  it  as  well  means  a 
distrust  of  one's  own  judgment.  It  means  a  lack  of  arro- 
gance and  a  feeling  of  respect  for  honest  difference  of  opin- 
ion. It  means  a  careful  and  cautious  formation  of  opinion, 
but  an  unswerving  adherence  to  the  right.  It  means  a 
hearty  sympathy  with  all  people  of  all  classes.  It  means, 
as  a  part  of  that  recognition  of  the  new  order  of  things  to 
which  I  have  just  alluded,  to  accept  in  good  part  and  in 
good  faith  the  citizenship  of  the  negro  race.  They  are  our 
fellow-citizens,  our  fellow-Americans,  our  fellow-Tennes- 
seeans.  Their  rights  are  as  sacred  as  ours.  Socially  God 
has  placed  a  wide  and  running  river  between  us.  This 
river  of  race  no  one  of  liberal  mind  can  desire  to  see  bridged 
over.  But  they  are  our  fellow-citizens,  and  on  opposite 
sides  of  this  river  they  are,  or  ought  to  be,  moving  with 
us  toward  the  common  goal  of  a  higher  order  of  civiliza- 
tion. In  civil  life  they  are  as  much  entitled  to  receive  the 
full  worth  of  their  money  as  we,  and  they  can  demand  as 
a  right  all  the  privileges  that  flow  from  a  free  ballot  and  a 
fair  count.  The  New  South,  in  full  sympathy  with  the 
lower  plane  upon  which  they  stand,  accepts  them  with 
hearty  acquiescence  and  turns  cheerfully  and  earnestly  to- 
ward the  solution  of  the  problem  that  involves  their  moral, 
intellectual  and  industrial  development. 

The  New  South  attempts  to  rise  above  the  barriers  of 
mere  partisanship  and  sectionalism.  It  loves  and  reveres 
the  emblem  of  our  nationality,  and  it  is  proud  of  all  the 
great  achievements  which  have  made  illustrious  the  name 
of  any  American  citizen.  It  rejoices  in  the  Union  and  its 
wide  domain,  and  most  of  all,  it  is  proud  that  the  blot  of 
slavery  has  been  removed  from  its  escutcheon.     It  says  in 


all  heartiness  and  sincerity,  God  be  praised  for  this  crown- 
ing glory  of  i  wonderful  century. 

This  spirit  of  generous  toleration  I  hope  to  Bee  especially 
typical  of  the  New  South.  And  I  do  not  see  in  this  frank 
acceptance  of  a  quarter-of-a-century'a  history  anything 
not  in  accord  with  the  gallant  and  chivalrous  Cause  that 

sheathed  its  sword  at  Appomattox.  As  a  Southerner,  born 
and  bred,  as  a  member  of  a  family  whose  blood  has  been 
shed  upon  nearly  every  battle-field  of  the  Confederacy,  as 
the  bod  of  a  Confederate  Senator  who  adyocated  immedi- 
ate Secession  ten  yean  before  it  was  attempted,  I  distinctly 
and,  if  you  please,  enthusiastically  disclaim  any  intention 
to  utter  one  word  of  apology  for  the  South.  The  New  South 
is  not  a  false  South.  All  of  the  sacred  memories  of  the 
days  now  gone,  the  great  events  of  a  struggle  that  passed 
like  successive  scenes  of  a  gorgeous  pageant  before  the 
eyes  of  an  admiring  and  wonder-stricken  world,  these 
things,  from  the  greatest  to  the  least,  are  the  heritage  of 
our  glory,  and  we  will  never  utter  one  recreant  word  about 
them. 

But  more  than  twenty  years  have  come  and  gone  since 
the  close  of  the  war.  The  graves  of  our  fathers  and  our 
brothers  for  more  than  twenty  times  have  been  clothed 
with  the  verdure  of  spring. 

••Here  scattered  oft,  the  earliest  of  the  year 

By  hands  unseen  are  showers  of  violets  found  ; 
The  red-breast  loves  to  build  and  warble  here 

And  little  footsteps  lightly  print  the  ground." 

The  hearts  that  were  crushed  by  the  weight  of  sorrow 
have  gone  down  to  the  grave,  and  those  that  were  bruised 
have  been  healed  by  the  imposition  of  the  gentle  hand  of 
time.  The  weary  Pilgrims  of  Despair  have  found  rest  in 
the  narrow  House  of  Death.  The  young  generation  have 
become  the  old  generation,  and  the  prattle  of  childhood 
has  mellowed  to  the  deeper  voice  of  maturity.  We  are  in 
a  world  that  has  already  spun  down  many  ringing  grooves 
of  change,  and  we  are  a  New  South. 

But  in  the  New  South,  whilst  holding  lovingly  to  the 
past,  we  look,  full  of  the  brightest  hope,  toward  the  future 


6 

— a  future  which  has  its  own  methods,  its  own  aims,  its  own 
aspirations.  The  confession  of  ignorance  is  the  beginning 
of  wisdom.  Of  all  things,  this  New  South  avoids  the  sneer, 
the  arrogant  superciliousness  of  the  narrow  mind.  It  tries 
to  take  a  broad  and  comprehensive  view  of  all  subjects.  It 
tries  to  manifest,  in  all  things,  a  spirit  of  eminent  human- 
ity and  a  liberalized  judgment.  It  utterly  discards  preju- 
dice from  the  domain  of  debate,  and  it  seeks  and  merits 
an  investigation  of  its  methods  and  ideas.  It  strives  to 
discuss  public  questions  from  a  high  plane.  It  cultivates 
a  sweep  of  vision  that  embraces  the  heavens,  the  seas  and 
the  mountains — not  that  which,  like  the  down-cast  eyes  of 
dumb  and  driven  cattle,  takes  in  merely  the  circumscribed 
plot  of  grass  that  gives  food  for  the  moment.  And  finally 
it  strives  to  cultivate  that  liberal  spirit  of  charity  that 
bursts  the  confines  of  a  hard,  narrow  and  bigoted  mind 
and  soul,  and  comes  out  in  butterfly  radiance  into  the  light 
of  day. 

THE   TARIFF. 

Of  all  subjects  of  public  importance,  the  tariff  is  the 
one  most  immediately  confronting  this  New  South,  of 
which  I  have  just  spoken.  And.it  is  also  the  subject  which 
of  all  others  requires  that  liberal-minded  discussion  for 
which  I  have  just  pleaded.  There  are,  roughly  speaking, 
three  points  of  view  from  which  this  can  be  considered, 
and  I  will  consider  it  from  each  of  the  three.  These  three 
points  are  free  trade  and  protection  within  the  party,  and 
protection  without.  The  free  trade  element  within  the 
Republican  party  is  not  as  yet  a  disturbing  factor,  the  Min- 
nesota congressmen  excepted.  I  shall  discuss  these  three 
phases  of  the  question  not  upon  their  merits,  but  solely 
with  reference  to  and  in  illustration  of  the  Democratic  po- 
sition on  the  tariff. 

And  now  first,  I  address  myself  to  the  free  traders  who 
claim  that  the  Democratic  party  is  a  free  trade  party.  This 
raises  an  historical  issue  which  I  propose  to  meet  by  the 
historical  method. 

Washington,  in  his  first  annual  message  of  January  8, 
1790,  said: 


"The  advancement  of  agriculture,  commerce  and  manufactures  by  all 
proper  means  will  Hot,  I  trust,  need  recommendation." 

In  his  eighth  annual  message,  December  7, 1796,  he  said: 

M  Congress  have  repeatedly,  and  not  without  success,  directed  their  atten- 
tion to  the  encouragement  of  manufactures.  The  object  is  of  too  much  con- 
sequence not  to  insure  a  continuance  of  their  efforts  in  every  way  which  shall 
appear  eligible." 

Benjamin  Franklin,  in  1771,  wrote: 

"  Every  manufacturer  encouraged  in  a  country  makes  a  part  of  a  market 
for  provisions  within  ourselves,  and  saves  so  much  money  to  the  country  as 
nrast  otherwise  be  exported  to  pay  for  the  manufacturers  he  supplies.  Here 
in  England  it  is  well  known  and  understood  that  whenever  a  manufacture  is 
established  it  raises  the  value  of  land  in  the  neighboring  country  all  around 
it.  It  seems,  therefore,  the  interest  of  our  farmers  and  owners  of  land  to 
encourage  our  young  manufactures  rather  than  foreign  ones." 

Franklin  and  Washington  were  not  Democrats,  but  this 
will  show  the  first  small  beginnings  of  an  idea. 

Thomas  Jefferson,  however,  was  a  Democrat,  and  in  his 
first  annual  message  of  December  8,  1801,  he  said : 

M  Agriculture,  manufacture,  commerce  and  navigation,  the  four  pillars  of 
our  prosperity,  are  the  most  thriving  when  left  most  free  to  individual  enter- 
prise.  Protection  from  casual  embarrassments,  however,  may  sometimes  be 
reasonably  interposed.  If  in  the  course  of  your  observations  or  inquiries 
they  should  appear  to  need  any  aid  within  the  limits  of  our  constitutional 
powers,  your  sense  of  their  importance  is  a  sufficient  assurance  that  they  will 
occupy  your  attention." 

In  his  second  annual  message,  December  15,  1802,  he 
enumerates,  as  among  the  things  which  should  claim  the 
attention  of  Congress : 

"To  foster  our  fisheries  and  nurseries  of  navigation,  and  for  the  nurture 
of  man,  and  protect  the  manufactures  adapted  to  our  circumstances." 

Again,  Thomas  Jefterson  says,  in  his  letter  to  Benjamin 
Austin,  written  in  1816 : 

"To  be  independent  for  the  comforts  of  life  we  must  fabricate  them  our- 
selves— we  must  now  place  the  manufacturer  by  the  side  of  the  agriculturist. 
The  grand  inquiry  now  is,  shall  we  make  our  own  comforts  or  go  without 
them  at  the  will  of  a  foreign  nation  ?  He,  therefore,  who  is  now  against 
domestic  manufactures  must  be  in  favor  of  reducing  us  either  to  a  dependence 
on  that  nation  or  be  clothed  in  skins  and  to  live  like  wild  beasts  in  dens  and 
caverns.  I  am  proud  to  say  I  am  not  one  of  these.  Experience  has  now 
taught  me  that  manufactures  are  as  necessary  to  our  independence  as  our 
comforts." 


8 

James  Madison,  in  a  special  message,  March  31,  1814, 
said  : 

"  I  recommend,  also,  a  more  effectual  safeguard  and  encouragement  to  our 
growing  manufactures,  that  the  additional  duties  and  imports  which  are  to 
expire  at  the  end  of  one  year  after  a  peace  with  Great  Britain  be  prolonged 
to  the  end  of  two  years  after  that  event." 

In  a  special  message  of  February  20,  1815,  he  said  : 

"  But  there  is  no  subject  that  can  enter  with  greater  force  or  merit  into  the 
deliberations  of  Congress  than  a  consideration  of  the  means  to  preserve  and 
promote  the  manufactures  which  have  sprung  into  existence  and  attained 
an  unparalleled  maturity  throughout  the  United  States  during  the  period  of 
the  European  wars.  This  source  of  national  independence  and  wealth  I 
anxiously  recommend,  therefore,  to  the  prompt  and  constant  guardianship  of 
Congress." 

In  his  seventh  annual  message  of  December  7,  1815,  he 
said: 

"  Under  circumstances  giving  powerful  impulse  to  manufacturing  industry, 
it  has  made  among  us  a  progress  and  exhibited  an  efficiency  which  justify 
the  belief  that  with  a  protection  not  more  than  is  due  to  the  enterprising  cit- 
izens whose  interests  are  now  at  stake,  it  will  become  at  an  early  day  not  only 
safe  against  occasional  competition  from  abroad,  but  a  source  of  domestic 
wealth  and  even  external  commerce." 

The  recommendations  of  Washington,  Franklin  and  Jef- 
ferson may  have  rested  upon  the  idea  that  we  should  have 
home  manufactures  as  a  kind  of  war  measure,  but  Madi- 
son distinctly  recognizes  the  principle  of  modified  and  con- 
ditional protection.  It  should  not  be  overlooked  that 
Madison  introduced  the  tariff  bill  of  1794,  nor  that  the 
tariff*  bill  of  1816,  which  was  a  protection  per  se  measure, 
was  reported  to  the  House  by  William  Lowndes  of  S.  C. 
The  Act  of  1821  was  voted  for  by  no  less  a  Democrat 
than  John  C.  Calhoun.  Calhoun  at  this  time  had  not  fully 
formulated  his  system.  He  first  became  a  free  trader 
when  he  discovered  that  the  question  of  nullification  could 
be  raised  in  opposition  to  a  protective  tariff. 

Madison's  letter  to  Cabell,  written  September  18,  1828, 
proves  that  he  had  a  clearly  defined  idea  of  the  issues 
involved  and  that  he  entertained  no  doubt  of  the  constitu- 
tionality of  a  protective  tariff.  The  letter  is  too  long  to 
quote  entire,  but  the  following  extracts  contain  his  con- 
clusions : 


9 

"  Your  late  letter  reminds  me  of  our  conversation  on  the  constitutionality 
of  the  power  of  Congress  to  impose  a  tariff  for  the  encouragement  of  manu- 
facturc^  Mid  of  my  promise  to  sketch  the  grounds  of  the  confident  opinion  I 
had  expressed  that  it  was  among  the  powers  of  that  body."  *  *  »  "  That 
the  encouragement  of  manufactures  was  an  object  of  the  power  to  regulate 
trade  is  proved  by  the  u>e  made  of  the  power  for  that  object  in  the  first  ses- 
sion of  the  first  Congress,  under  the  Constitution." 

James  Monroe,  in  hifl  inaugural  address  of  March  5, 181 7r 
says : 

"  Our  manufactures  find  a  generous  encouragement  by  the  policy  which 
patronizes  domestic  industry  and  the  surplus  of  our  produce  a  steady  and 
profitable  market  by  local  wants  in  less  favored  parts  at  home." 

Again,  in  the  same  address,  he  says : 

•♦Our  manufacturers  will  likewise  require  the  systematic  and  fosteringcare 
of  the  government.  *  *  *  Equally  important  is  it  to  provide  at  home  a 
market  for  our  raw  materials,  as  by  extending  the  competition  it  will  enhance 
the  price  and  protect  the  cultivator  against  the  casualities  incident  to  foreign 
markets." 

Again,  in  his  first  annual  message  of  December  2,  1817, 
he  says : 

"Our  manufactories  require  the  continued  attention  of  Congress.  The 
capital  employed  in  them  is  considerable  and  the  knowledge  required  in  the 
machinery  and  fabric  of  all  the  most  useful  manufactures  is  of  great  value. 
Their  preservation,  which  depends  on  due  encouragement,  is  connected  with 
the  high  interests  of  the  nation." 

In  his  third  annual  message  of  December  7, 1819,  he  says : 

11  It  is  deemed  of  great  importance  to  give  encouragement  to  our  domestic 
manufactures." 

In  his  fifth  annual  message  of  December  3, 1821,  he  says  : 

"It  may  fairly  be  presumed  that  under  the  protection  given  to  domestic 
manufactures  by  the  existing  laws,  we  shall  become  at  no  distant  period  a 
manufacturing  country  on  an  extensive  scale." 

In  his  sixth  annual  message  of  December  3, 1822,  he  says : 

"From  the  best  information  that  I  have  been  able  to  obtain  it  appears  that 
our  manufacturers,  though  depressed  immediately  after  the  peace,  have  con- 
siderably increased  and  are  still  increasing  under  the  encouragement  given 
them  by  the  tariff  of  i8i6and  by  subsequent  laws.  Satisfied  I  am,  whatever 
may  be  the  abstract  doctrine  in  favor  of  unrestricted  commerce,  provided  all 
nations  would  concur  in  it,  and  it  was  not  liable  to  be  interrupted  by  war, 
which  has  never  occurred  and  cannot  be  expected,  that  there  are  other  strong 
reasons  applicable  to  our  situation  and  relations  with  other  countries,  which 
impose  on  us  the  obligation  to  cherish  and  sustain  our  manufactures." 


10 

Andrew  Jackson  was  in  the  Senate  and  voted  for  the 
protective  tariff  of  1824.  He  was  elected  President  on 
this  tariff  platform : 

"Resolved,  That  an  adequate  protection  to  American  industries  is  indis- 
pensable to  the  prosperity  of  the  country,  and  that  an  abandonment  of  that 
policy  at  this  period  would  be  attended  with  serious  consequences  to  the 
nation." 

In  his  inaugural  address  Andrew  Jackson  said,  March 
4,  1829 : 

"  With  regard  to  a  proper  selection  of  the  subjects  of  import,  with  a  view 
to  revenue,  it  would  seem  to  me  that  the  spirit  of  equity,  caution  and  compro- 
mise in  which  the  Constitution  was  formed,  requires  that  the  great  interests 
of  agriculture,  commerce  and  manufacture  should  be  equally  favored." 

In  his  first  annual  message  of  December  8, 1829,  he  said : 

"The  general  rule  to  be  applied  in  graduating  the  duties  upon  articles  of 
foreign  growth  or  manufacture  is  that  which  will  place  our  own  in  fair  com- 
petition with  those  of  other  countries." 

In  his  second  annual  message  of  December  7,  1830,  he 
says : 

"The  power  to  impose  duties  on  imports  originally  belonged  to  the  sev- 
eral States.  The  right  to  adjust  those  duties  with  a  view  to  the  encourage- 
ment of  domestic  branches  of  industry  is  so  completely  identical  with  that 
power  that  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  the  existence  of  one  without  the  other." 

In  the  celebrated  Coleman  letter  he  writes  : 

"If  we  omit  or  refuse  to  use  the  gifts  which  God  has  extended  to  us,  we 
deserve  not  the  continuation  of  His  blessings.  He  has  filled  our  mountains 
and  our  plains  with  minerals — with  lead,  iron  and  copper,  and  given  us  cli- 
mate and  soil  for  the  growing  of  hemp  and  wool.  These  being  the  grand 
materials  of  our  national  defense,  they  ought  to  have  extended  to  them  ade- 
quate and  fair  protection,  that  our  own  manufactories  and  laborers  may  be 
placed  on  a  fair  competition  with  those  of  Europe.  *     *     Draw  from 

agriculture  this  superabundant  labor,  employ  it  in  mechanism  and  manufact- 
ures, thereby  creating  a  home  market  for  your  breadstuffs,  and  distributing 
labor  to  the  most  profitable  account,  and  benefits  to  the  country  will  result. 
Take  from  agriculture  in  the  United  States  600,000  men,  women  and  child- 
Ten,  and  you  will  at  once  give  a  home  market  for  more  breadstuffs  than  all 
Europe  now  furnishes  us.  In  short,  sir,  we  have  been  too  long  subject  to  the 
policy  of  British  merchants.  It  is  true  that  we  should  become  a  little  more 
Americanized,  and  instead  of  feeding  the  paupers  and  laborers  of  England, 
feed  our  own  ;  or  else,  in  a  short  time,  by  continuing  our  present  policy,  we 
shall  all  be  paupers  ourselves." 


11 

James  K.  Polk  in  hii  inaugural  address,  March  4,  1845, 
says : 

♦'The  incidental  protection  afforded  to  our  home  industry  by  discrimina- 
tions within  the  revenue  range,  it  is  believed,  will  be  ample.  In  making 
discriminations,  all  our  home  interests  should,  a^  far  as  practicable,  be  equally 
protected." 

In  the  oft-qu^)t©d  Kane  letter  Mr.  Polk  said: 

M  I  am  in  favor  of  a  tariff  for  revenue — such  a  one  as  will  yield  a  sufficient 
amount  to  the  treasury  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  government,  economi- 
cally administered.  In  adjusting  the  details  of  a  revenue  tariff,  I  have 
heretofore  sanctioned  such  moderate  discriminating  duties  as  would  produce 
the  amount  of  revenue  needed,  and  at  the  same  time  afford  reasonable  inci- 
dental protection  to  our  home  industry.  *  *  *  *  *  In  my  judgment, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  government  to  extend,  as  far  as  may  be  practicable  to  do 
so,  by  its  revenue  laws  and  all  other  means  within  its  power,  fair  and  just 
protection  to  all  the  great  interests  of  the  whole  union,  embracing  agricul- 
ture, manufactures,  the  mechanic  arts,  commerce  and  navigation." 

This  was  the  Chicago  platform  of  its  day,  and  it  elected 
Mr.  Polk  to  the  Presidency.  It  carried  Pennsylvania  for 
him,  without  which  he  would  have  been  defeated  by  Mr. 
Clay.  Wilson  McCandless,  a  leading  Democrat  of  that 
State,  wrote  in  1844,  after  the  publication  of  the  Kane  let- 
ter, a  letter  in  which  he  denounced  Mr.  Clay  as  having 
abandoned  the  principle  of  protection  in  the  Compromise 
of  1832,  and  urged  Mr.  Polk  as  having  the  true  interests 
of  Pennsylvania  at  heart.  Mr.  Polk  could  justly  thank 
the  Kane  and  the  McCandless  letters  for  his  election. 

In  1882  took  place  the  great  Tariff  Debate,  immediately 
following  the  tariff-for-revenue-only  utterance  of  the  party 
which  lost  General  Hancock  Indiana,  and  possibly  New 
York.  Nearly  every  Democratic  speaker  recognized  the 
doctrine  of  incidental  protection.  Mr.  Vest  said,  "  within 
the  scope  of  a  tarift  for  revenue,  I  shall  vote  to  foster  and 
protect,  by  just  discrimination  in  tarift  duties,  the  iron 
interests  of  Missouri,"  and  advocated  an  adjustment  of  the 
duties  for  purposes  of  protection. 

Mr.  Saulsbury  said : 

"I  am  certainly  willing  to  give  our  industries  any  advantage  which  such 
incidental  protection  can  afford. " 

Mr.  Beck  said  : 

11  In  adjusting  taxation  on  imports  with  a  view  only  to  obtain  revenue  or 
for  rrsenue  only,  we  never  thought  of  discriminating  against  American  indus- 


12 

tries  or  of  depriving  them  of  the   incidental  benefits  or  protection  a  proper 
revenue  tariff  would  afford." 

Senators  Bayard,  Lamar  and  others  spoke  to  the  same 
effect. 

In  the  House  Mr.  Randolph  Tucker  said  : 

"  There  is  no  man  on  the  committee  who  is  not  willing  in  the  present  con- 
dition of  things  to  accord  such  a  duty  upon  all  manufactured  articles  as  will 
enable  the  manufacturing  interests  to  pay  the  full  measure  of  wages  that 
the  American  laborer  has  a  right  to  demand." 

Mr.  J.  D.  C.  Atkins,  the  able  Tennesseean,  at  that  time 
one  of  the  leaders  in  Congress,  said : 

"The  Democracy  freely  admit  that  in  adjusting  the  details  of  any  tariff 
law,  it  must  perforce  afford  incidental  protection  to  many  industries,  but  the 
purposes  of  the  tariff  laws  are  to  obtain  revenue,  while  as  they  incidentally 
must  afford  protection  to  some  industries,  those  details  should  be  so 
adjusted,  if  practicable,  as  to  apply  to  those  industries  which  obviously 
most  equitably  require  it." 

Mr.  John  G.  Carlisle,  in  that  great  speech  which  stands 
pre-eminent  as  the  ablest  argument  ever  made  upon  the 
floor  of  Congress  in  favor  of  tariff-reform,  delivered  March 
28  and  29,  1882,  said : 

"  We  cannot  as  responsible  legislators  close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  under 
this  system,  whether  it  was  originally  wise  or  unwise,  large  and  valuable 
interests  have  grown  up,  that  great  masses  of  capital  have  been  withdrawn 
from  other  pursuits  and  embarked  in  manufacturing  enterprises,  and  that 
labor,  following,  as  it  always  does,  where  capital  leads,  has  been  to  a  large 
extent  diverted  from  its  previous  channels  and  has  permanently  identified 
itself  with  these  various  interests.  In  any  revision  that  may  be  made,  proper 
regard  should  be  had  for  the  welfare  of  these  great  interests." 

Mr.  Cleveland  in  his  first  message  said  : 

"Justness  and  fairness  dictate  that  in  any  modification  of  our  present 
laws  relating  to  revenue,  the  industries  and  interests  which  have  been  en- 
couraged by  such  laws  and  in  which  our  citizens  have  large  investments, 
should  not  be  ruthlessly  injured  or  destroyed.  We  should  also  deal  with  the 
subject  in  such  manner  as  to  protect  the  interests  of  American  labor,  which 
is  the  capital  of  our  workingmen.  Its  stability  and  proper  remuneration 
furnish  the  most  justifiable  pretext  for  a  protective  policy  within  these 
limitations." 

Robert  L.  Taylor  has  taken  exactly  the  same  grounds. 
In  a  speech  at  Cleveland,  Tennessee,  Sept.  10,  1886,  he 
said : 

"  Now,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  not  a  free-trader  and  never  was. 
The  Democratic  party  is  not  a  free  trade  party,  but  we  are  for  a  tariff  which 


13 

is  necessary  to  bring  us  n  revenue  and  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  govern- 
ment, to  pay  the  interest  on  the  national  debt,  and  at  the  same  time  give 
protection  to  the  laborer  tad  OUf  Industrie*.  In  short,  the  Democratic  view 
of  the  tariff  question  is  this:  A  tariff  sufficient  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the 
government,  economically  administered,  and  to  cover  the  difference  between 
the  price  of  American  labor  and  foreign  labor." 

The  Memphis  Appeal  in  an  editorial  of  October  -i.  1***1, 
commenting  on  a  speeeh  made  by  Senator  Voorhees,  in 
which  he  squarely  indorsed  the  Chicago  platform,  said, 
referring  to  the  platform : 

•♦This  is  the  law  of  the  Democratic  party  on  the  much  agitated  subject  of 
the  tariff,  and  it  must  continue  to  bz  the  law  until  it  is  repealed  or  modified 
by  the  next  National  Democratic  Convention.  It  is  a  just  medium  between 
the  extremes  of  the  ideal  free  trader  and  the  greedy  and  grabbing  tariff  man, 
and  ought  to  satisfy  every  man  of  common  sense  in  the  country.  It  is,  as 
the  brainy  .senator  from  Indiana  says,  *  wise,  safe  and  patriotic'  " 

The  Chicago  platform  itself  is  as  follows: 

M  Knowing  full  well,  however,  that  legislation  affecting  the  occupations  of 
the  people  should  be  cautious  and  conservative  in  method,  not  in  advance  of 
public  opinion,  but  responsive  to  its  demands,  the  Democratic  party  is 
pledged  to  revise  the  tariff  in  a  spirit  of  fairness  to  all  interests. 

44  But  in  making  reduction  in  taxes,  it  is  not  proposed  to  injure  any 
domestic  industries,  but  rather  to  promote  their  healthy  growth.  From  the 
foundation  of  this  government,  taxes  collected  at  the  custom  house  have 
been  the  chief  source  of  federal  revenue.  Such  they  must  continue  to  be. 
Moreover,  many  industries  have  come  to  rely  on  legislation  for  a  successful 
continuance,  so  that  any  change  of  law  must  be  at  every  step  regardful  of 
the  labor  and  capital  thus  involved.  The  process  of  reform  must  be  subject 
in  the  execution  to  this  plain  dictate  of  justice. 

"All  taxation  shall  be  limited  to  the  requirements  of  economical  govern- 
ment. The  necessary  reduction  in  taxation  can  and  must  be  effected  with- 
out depriving  American  labor  of  the  ability  to  compete  successfully  with 
foreign  labor,  and  without  imposing  lower  rates  of  duty  than  will  be  ample 
to  cover  any  increased  cost  of  production  which  may  exist  in  consequence  of 
the  higher  rate  of  wages  prevailing  in  this  country. 

"Sufficient  revenue  to  pay  all  the  expenses\of  the  Federal  Government, 
economically  administered,  including  pensions,  interest,  and  principal  of  the 
public  debt,  can  t>e  got,  under  our  present  system  of  taxation,  from  custom 
house  taxes  on  fewer  imported  articles,  bearing  heaviest  on  articles  of  luxury, 
and  bearing  lightest  on  articles  of  necessity. 

M  We  therefore  denounce  the  abuses  of  the  existing  tariff;  and  subject  to 
the  preceding  limitations,  we  demand  that  federal  taxation  shall  be  exclu- 
sively for  public  purposes,  and  shall  not  exceed  the  needs  of  the  government 
economically  administered." 

This,  my  fellow  citizens,  is  my  answer  to  those  who  say 
that  the  Democratic  party  is  a  free  trade  party,  and  who 


14 

studiously  ignore  the  Chicago  platform  and  the  doctrine 
of  incidental  protection.  Is  there  any  man  who  can  in 
the  face  of  these  authorities,  insist  upon  Democratic  can- 
didates declaring  themselves  on  the  nearest  approach  to 
free-trade  which  can  be  accomplished  under  a  tariff-reve- 
nue ?  The  general  impression  of  the  Chicago  platform  is, 
that  it  is  what  is  now-a-days  called  a  straddling  utterance. 
They  think  it  such  an  answer  on  this  subject  as  that  of  an 
ingenious  but  not  over-positive  student  whom  a  professor 
asked  whether  the  sun  went  around  the  earth  or  the  earth 
around  the  sun.  His  answer  was,  "  sometimes  one  and 
sometimes  the  other."  I  beg  you  to  notice,  however,  that 
the  ignorance  of  the  student  in  no  wise  affected  the  law 
of  nature,  and  the  Chicago  platform  is  not  made  ambiguous 
by  the  blindness  of  those  who  construe  it.  It  is  a  con- 
servative measure  of  statesmanship,  adapted  to  the  needs 
and  exigencies  of  the  hour.  It  stands  between  protection 
per  se  and  free  trade  as  any  other  mean  stands  between  any 
other  two  extremes.  It  is  not  as  with  these  two  questions, 
like  the  third  tine  of  a  tripod,  one  at  each  angle,  but  it  is 
like  the  central  arch  of  a  bridge,  standing  between  the 
two  ends,  supporting  and  connecting  both. 

The  Republican  party  favors  protection  per  se.  I  heed 
not  cite  authority  to  prove  this,  beyond  Mr.  Blaine's  letter 
of  acceptance  in  1884  in  which  he  said,  "  for  twenty-three 
years  the  Republicans  have,  in  the  tariff  laws,  maintained 
the  policy  of  protection."  His  recent  Maine  speeches 
take  the  same  position.  Mr.  Wm.  D.  Kelly,  Mr.  Wm.  A. 
Russell,  and  in  fact  all  the  Republican  leaders  in  Congress, 
have  announced  this  doctrine  over  and  over  again  as  the 
corner-stone  of  Republicanism. 

Now  my  definition  of  protection,  or  of  the  Republican 
tariff,  is  this  :  A  tariff  levied  upon  the  fewest  number  of 
articles  in  general  use,  manufactured  in  this  country,  as 
will  suffice  to  raise  the  revenue  necessary  to  meet  the 
demands  of  a  government  extravagantly  administered,  a 
prohibitory  tariff  upon  all  other  articles  in  general  use, 
and  a  low  rate  for  luxuries. 


L5 

The  Democratic  Idea  of  a  tariff,  boweyer,  La  a  tariil  just 
sufficient  to  raise  the.  revenue  needed  for  the  purposes  of 
an  economical  government!  so  ml.justiMl  within  this  limit 
as  to  afford  a  reasonable  amount  of  protection  to  Ameri- 
can industries  and  suflicienl  to  equalise  wages  paid  at  home 
and  abroad. 

This  then  ta  the  aim  of  the  two  parties;  the  Republican 
tries  to  adjust  the  details  of  the  tarilt  so  as  to  protect  the 
manufacturer. 

The  Democrat  tries  to  adjust  the  details  of  the  tariff  so 
as  to  protect  the  laborer  and  farmer. 

Now  my  Republican  friends  know  this  tobe  true,  hut 
they  frequently  try  to  becloud  the  issue  by  saying  in  one 
breath  that  the  Democrats  are  for  free  trade,  and  that  the 
Democrats  are  as  much  in  favor  of  protection  as  they  are. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  follow  the  mental  process  of  each 
in  the  case  of  any  particular  article.  If  this  is  an  article  in 
very  general  use,  in  the  manufacture  of  which  his  con- 
stituents have  a  large  amount  of  capital  invested,  the 
Republican  at  once  decides  that  a  high  rate  of  duty  must 
be  imposed  upon  it.  If  it  is  a  luxury,  he  imposes  a  low 
rate  of  duty. 

The  Democrat,  however,  in  reference  to  the  same  arti- 
cle, inverts  his  conclusions.  If  it  is  an  article  in  general 
he  at  once  decides  upon  a  low  rate  of  duty.  He  next 
wishes  to  know  how  much  capital  is  invested  in  its  manu- 
facture and  what  effect  any  particular  rate  of  duty  would 
have  on  the  manufacturer.  Especially  is  this  the  case,  if 
the  investment  has  been  made,  on  account  of  the  allure- 
ments held  out  by  a  high  protective  tariff.  Having  ex- 
amined these  points,  he  decides  upon  such  a  reduction  as 
will  bring  him  within  the  influence  of  a  healthful  compe- 
tition, and  serve  as  a  warning,  to  prepare  for  future  reduc- 
tions. He  also  asks  what  effect  this  will  have  upon  the 
laborer.  Going  into  an  examination  of  this  question,  and 
not  heeding  the  Republican  manufacturer,  who  insists  that 
the  highest  rate  of  duty  is  the  best  measure  of  protection 
for  the  laborer,  he  will  probably  find  that  a  rate  of  about 
18  percent,  will  cover  the  difference  between  home-paid 


16 

and  foreign  wages.  Here  lie  has  his  starting  point.  He 
therefore  levies  18  per  cent.,  to  which  he  will  add  such  a 
rate  of  duty  as  will  yield  the  maximum  of  revenue.  If 
necessary  he  adds,  for  the  present  only,  such  an  additional 
rate  as  will  enable  the  judicious  manufacturer  to  readjust 
himself  to  a  new  order  of  things,  an  order  of  things  devised 
for  the  benefit  of  the  laborer,  the  farmer  and  the  mechanic. 

THE  PRESENT  TARIFF. 

The  present  tariff  is  a  protective  tariff,  and  I  oppose  it  as 
a  Democrat. 

It  is  a  sectional  tariff,  and  I  oppose  it  as  a  Tennesseean. 

Let  me  adduce  just  a  few  instances  which  show  how  the 
farming  interest  has  been  discriminated  against. 

Before  however  going  into  this  question,  I  wish  again 
to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  at  present  I  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  contest  between  the  free  trader  and  pro- 
tectionist. The  general  principles  of  the  latter,  I  believe, 
are  as  follows : 

That  protection  supplies  a  home  market  for  agricultural 
purposes. 

That  it  gives  diversified  employment,  preventing  over- 
production in  agriculture. 

That  the  tariff  is  not  added  to  the  price  of  the  article, 
but  that  home  competition  keeps  down  the  price. 

That  it  increases  the  amount  of  wages  paid  to  the 
laborer. 

That  it  develops  the  resources  of  a  country. 

That  a  protective  system  is  necessary  to  compensate  for 
the  difference  in  wages,  taxation,  and  the  rate  of  interest 
here  and  abroad,  that  is,  in  England. 

That  it  builds  up  the  infant  industries  of  a  country  until 
sufficient  skill  and  experience  have  been  acquired  to  ren- 
der possible,  competition  with  foreign  skill  and  experience. 

The  free  trader  says  that  a  protective  tariff  is  a  bounty 
levied  upon  the  many  for  the  few. 

That  it  is  class  legislation  in  its  most  hateful  form  of  tax- 
ation. 

That  it  makes  the  poor  poorer  and  the  rich  richer. 


17 

That  the  amount  of  the  tarifl  Lb  added  to  the  price  of  the 
article,  and  that  the  manufacturer  at  home  pockets  thie 
difference  on  every  article  sold. 

That  wages  are  not  increased  by  protection,  and  that  free 
trade  England  paye  higher  wages  than  protected  Germany 

and  Fran 

That  on  the,  contrary,  wages  are  fixed  by  tree  trade 
instead  of  protection. 

That  a  tariff  Levied  for  protection  is  unconstitutional  and 

unjust. 

That  it  works  an  especial  hardship  on  the  farmer,  who 
is  forced  to  buy  in  the  highest  and  sell  in  the  cheapest 
market. 

That  the  difference  in  wages,  taxation  and  the  rate  of 
interest  is  so  small  as  to  have  no  appreciable  result  where 
any  tariff  is  levied  at  all. 

That  the  Republican  tariff  has  driven  American  ships 
from  the  high  seas. 

Now  with  these  general  principles  we  have  at  this  time 
nothing  to  do.  I  merely  state  them  beause  they  are  so 
often  made  the  weapons  of  attack  and  defense  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  question.  I  have  never  been  an  admirer  of 
the  inductive  method,  and  almost  invariably  this  question 
is  discussed  in  this  manner. 

Abstract  reasoning  deals  in  abstractions  and  attaches  to 
words  and  phraseologies  significances  that  vary  according 
to  the  individual.  People  who  discuss  questions  in  this 
way,  laying  down  no  common  premise,  agreeing  upon  the 
definitions  of  no  general  terms,  starting  from  no  common 
point,  remind  me  of  such  a  fight  as  would  take  place  if  a 
kite  were  to  make  a  violent  attack  on  a  wind-mill. 

I  remember  once  reading  in  an  old  chronicler,  a  curious 
story  of  a  peasant  who  lost  his  way  in  a  forest  and  stum- 
bled into  fairy-land.  The  sights  he  saw  were  of  a  most 
curious  kind.  He  was  especially  struck  by  the  strange 
regularity  of  everything.  He  saw  hosts  of  butterflies  flut- 
tering about  in  rows  and  columns  in  a  kind  of  military 
evolution,  as  if  they  were  being  guided  by  some  unseen 
butterfly  commander.     The  flowers  were  massed  in  huge 


18 

clusters,  each  cluster  representing  a  lion,  a  tiger,  a  lizard, 
or  other  natural  shape.  The  birds  flew  in  mathematical 
curves.  The  trees  ran  in  lines  or  crowded  together  in 
squares,  and  when  the  breeze  swept  over  them,  each  one 
bowed  just  as  low  as  the  other,  as  if  a  king  had  stepped 
suddenly  among  his  attendant  courtiers.  Charmed  and  de- 
lighted, the  peasant  wandered  on  through  endless  repeti- 
tions of  the  same  scene.  There  were,  however,  no  land- 
marks that  enabled  him  to  pursue  a  straight  course,  and  he 
eventually  died  of  starvation  in  the  midst  of  all  these  fan- 
tastic wonders.  Democrats  who  in  this  way  discuss  the 
public  questions  of  the  day,  and  especially  the  abstract 
principle  of  free  trade  as  opposed  to  protection,  without  re- 
gard to  the  demands  of  party  supremacy  and  regardless  of 
the  fact  that  the  necessities  of  the  case  do  not  require  any- 
thing beyond  the  Chicago  platform,  are  in  my  mind  with- 
drawn from  the  fields  of  actual  life  and  are  wandering  in 
the  grotesque  realms  of  the  abstract  and  intangible.  This 
kind  of  juggling  with  ideas  is  to  the  practical  and  compre- 
hensive discussion  of  a  subject  what  a  clock  with  its  pro- 
cession of  apostles,  and  ringing  of  chimes,  and  crowing  of 
cocks  is  to  a  compass,  or  what  a  set  of  fire-works  with  its 
twisting  serpents,  and  writhing  dragons,  and  shooting 
sky-rockets  and  colored  flames  is  to  a  light  house,  or  what 
anything  which  excites  merely  a  pleasurable  emotion  by 
the  ingenuity  of  its  mechanism,  is  to  those  things  which 
add  to  the  comforts  of  life  and  the  means  of  intellectual 
improvement. 

The  question  at  issue  is  tarifl  reform  or  protection.  As 
between  the  two,  I  wish  to  say  pointedly  that  I  am  for  re- 
form. This  position  is  well  approved  by  the  leaders  of  the 
party.     Mr.  Cleveland,  in  his  message  Dec.  8,  1885,  said : 

"The  proposition  with  which  we  have  to  deal  is  the  reduction  of  the  rev- 
enue received  by  the  government  and  indirectly  paid  by  the  people  from  cus- 
toms duties;  the  question  of  free  trade  is  not  now  involved,  nor  is  there  any 
occasion  for  the  discussion  of  the  wisdom  or  expediency  of  a  protective  system." 

Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  in  a  speech  delivered  in  Congress 
March  30,  1882,  said: 

"  Happily,  in  considering  the  situation  we  are  relieved  from  all  the  neces- 
sity of  deciding  the  vexed  question  of  free  trade  or  protection.  That  ques- 
tion, important  as  it  is,  is  not  now  involved  in  the  work  before  us." 


19 

I  think,  too,  that  this  view  of  the  question  is  a  wise  one« 
Tlit-  political  blunders  of  the  world  have  been  made  by 
those  who  were  not  willing  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  issue 
q{  the  hour.  All  great  statesmen  have  invariably  followed 
the  rule  of  accomplishing  the  work  in  hand.  IiismarcJc, 
during  long  years  of  weary  Waiting,  Worked   (for  the  unili- 

on  of  Germany,  deposing  a  prince  here,  mediatising 

a  province    there,    perfecting    the   military  organization  bf 

Germany,  waging  each   war  as  it   came,  reconciling  and 

harmonizing  within,  crushing  and  annihilating  without, 
until  the  time  came  when  he  could  say  to  the  astounded 
world.  "  I  have  crowned  a  EJohenzollern  in  the  palace  of 
the  Bourbons." 

Fqi-  fifteen  years  Gladstone  has  favored  Home  Rule  for 
Ireland,  hut  not  till  this  year  has  he  avowed  his  purpose 
to  accomplish  that  result.  As  he  says  himself,  "a  thing 
must  be  seen  as  well  as  foreseen." 

In  my  mind  there  is  no  doubt  that'Parnell  expects  to  see 
Ireland  an  independent  Republic  before  be  dies,  but  not 
one  word  has  yet  fallen  from  bis  lips  to  justify  the  belief. 

I  know  of  one  instance  of  a  great  eagerness  to  antici- 
pate an  issue  and  take  action  before  it  arrived.  This  was 
the  secession  of  the  South,  when  Mr.  Lincoln  was  elected. 

Let  twenty-five  years  of  Republican  misrule  speak  for 
the  wisdom  of  the  rash  step. 

The  radical  school  of  statesmanship  makes  good  soldiers 
but  poor  leaders.  They  are  good  in  attack  but  poor  in 
flank  movements.  They  are  good  preachers  but  poor  diplo- 
mats In  Bismarck's  place,  instead  of  adapting  themselves 
to  the  whims  of  Louis  Napoleon  and  learning  the  lesson 
of  French  weakness  under  the  elms  of  Versailles,  they 
would  have  whispered  in  his  startled  ears  that  they  wanted 
and  intended  to  have  Alsace  and  Lorraine  as  provinces 
of  a  united  German  empire. 

They  would  never  have  accomplished  the  disestablish- 
ment of  the  Church  of  Ireland,  because  they  would  have 
at  once  demanded  a  Parliament  on  College  Green. 

I  repeat,  the  issue  is  between  tariff  reform  and  protec- 
tion, per  se.  I  regard  the  present  tariff  as  embodying 
everything  a  protectionist  could  ask,  and  I  oppose  it. 


20 
DISCRIMINATION  AGAINST  THE  FARMERS. 

It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  the  agricultural  laborers  of 
Europe  and  Asia  are  the  worst  paid  in  the  world,  and  yet 
ti  is  with  these  who  produce  wheat  in  Russia,  and  Hun- 
gary and  India,  and  rice  in  India,  and  cotton  in  Egypt  and 
India,  and  potatoes  in  Germany,  that  the  American  farmer 
has  to  compete.  They  receive  wages  greatly  inferior  to 
the  mechanical  laborer,  and  yet  whilst  the  American  me- 
chanic is  protected,  and  justly  protected  against  his  well- 
paid  foreign  rival,  the  American  agricultural  laborer  is 
(the  rice-growers  excepted),  practically  unprotected.  This 
is  the  first  patent  effect  of  the  Republican  tariff. 

Let  me  read  you  a  short  list  of  the  articles  generally  con- 
sumed by  the  farmers  of  the  country,  with  the  rate  of  duty 
affixed  to  each,  omitting  fractions.  The  rates  are  taken 
from  the  "  Annual  Report  of  the  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of 
Statistics,  in  Regard  to  Imported  Merchandise  for  the 
Year  Ending  June  30, 1885."  The  duties  as  a  rule  are  both 
specific  and  ad  valorem,  but  I  take  the  estimated  ad  valo- 
rem rates  : 

Sugar  pays  73  per  cent.,  salt  pays  53  per  cent.,  molasses 
29,  window-glass  26,  cotton  ties  35,  plows  45,  chains  and 
trace-chains  51,  leather  28,  lumber  18,  nails  36,  horse-shoe 
nails  116,  wire  (iron)  30,  bagging  35  to  48,  blankets  (coarse) 
71,  cheap  cotton  goods  (bleached)  62,  (unbleached)  53,  dyed 
60,  woolen  cloths  67  to  89,  soap  25,  paint  32,  carpets  40  to 
86,  crockery  56,  flannels  (common)  77,  cheap  wool  hats  75, 
spool-thread  51,  yarn  47,  starch  82,  vinegar  35,  cooking 
vessels  (iron)  42,  cotton  socks  40. 

On  the  other  hand,  see  how  small  the  rate  of  duty  is  on 
those  things  which  he  produces.  Cotton  and  eggs  are  free, 
potatoes  pay  15  cts.,  rye  10  cts.,  barley  10  cts.,  corn  10  cts. 
and  wheat  20  cts.  a  bushel.  Hemp  pays  20  per  cent,  ad 
valorem.  Hay  pays  $2  a  ton.  Vegetables,  in  their  natural 
state,  pay  10  per  cent.,  but  after  they  have  passed  through 
the  hands  of  the  manufacturer  they  pay  38  per  cent. 
Cattle,  horses  and  mules  pay  20  per  cent.  Flour  pays 
20  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Beef  and  pork  pay  1  cent, 
ham  and  bacon  2  cents,  cheese  4  cents,  bristles  15  cents 


21 

a    pound.      Honey   pays  20  cents  a  gallon.     Wool  pays 
from  10  to  11  cents  a  pound.    Cotton,  the  greal  staple  of 

the  South,  of  which  $800,0o<>  was  imported  in  1888,  is  not 
.   without  protection,  bul  Buch  is  our  situation  thai  it 
is  practically  impossible  to  protect  it.     The  price  of  cot 
is  directly  affected  by  the  Egyptian  and  [&dian  crop,  which, 
II  known,  is  steadily  increasing  in  quantity,  and 
10  method  can  possibly  be  devised  by  which  this  com- 
petition can  be  oflfeel  by  ai  m  of  tarifl  or  taxation. 

The  Republicans  have  claimed  thai  their  tariff,  whilst  it 
might  increase  the  price  oi  some  articles,  more  than  offsets 
this  by  giving  the  farmer  a  home  market  for  his  products. 
Let  us  see  how  far  this  claim  is  home  out  by  fa 

The  rapid  increase  in  the  aggregate  of  our  agricultural 
lucts  has  in  the  main  come  from  a  rapid  increase  of 
population  and  improved  methods  in  agriculture.  In  this 
way  production  has  outstripped  home  consumption  and  we 
have  been  forced  to  export  more  than  ever  before.  In 
1856,  the  entire  amount  of  agricultural  produce  exported 
amounted  to  s248,091,0H4.  In  1880  this  amount  had  risen 
1685,961,091.  Of  this  amount,  about  #211,535,905,  or 
about  80  per  cent.,  was  raw  cotton,  the  staple  of  the  South, 

Of  the  total  exports  of  1880,  agricultural  exportation 
amounted  to  83 J  per  cent. 

In  1882  we  exported  of  domestic  merchandise  $181,019,- 
913,  and  of  domestic  agricultural  products  $552,219,819. 
Of  this  $181,019,913,  but  $103,132,481  were  articles  of  do- 
itic  manufacture.     Thai  i  per  cent,  of  our  total 

exports  were  agricultural   products,  and   14.o7  per   cent, 
were  domestic  manufactur 

In  the  case  of  the  farmer,  a-  in  the  case  of  the  Laborer, 
like  an  object  approaching  a  light:  the  shadow  goes 
one  way  and  the  substance  another.  There  has  heen  no 
increase  in  the  value  of  his  farm  commensurate  with  the 
burdens  which  the  farmer  has  heen  compelled  to  hear. 
The  increase  in  the  value  of  farms  in  the  United  States 
from  1850  to  1860,  during  a  period  of  what  may  he  called 
a  properly  adjusted  Democratic  tariff  (the  average  ad  va- 
lorem rate  under  the  tariff  acts  of  1846  and  1857  was  about 


22 

24  per  cent.)  was  103  per  cent.,  but  from  I860  to  1880,  dur- 
ing the  monopolistic  Republican  tariff,  the  increase  was 
23  per  cent.,  or  about  J  as  much. 

If,  now,  the  price  of  things  he  consumes  were  offset  to 
the  farmer  by  an  increased  price  of  the  things  he  produces, 
a  high  tariff  would  be  a  matter  of  indifference  to  him. 
But  just  the  converse  holds  true.  Take  a  few  of  the  main 
articles  he  produces  and  compare  their  prices  from  1850  to 
1860,  and  from  1870  to  1880,  and  then  see  the  difference 
between  a  Democratic  and  a  Republican  tariff.  I  take  the 
lowest  average  price  in  New  York : 


Corn   (bushel)  

Oats 

Wheat 

Flour  (per  barrel), 
Pork  (per  barrel).. 
Lard  (per  pound) .. 


1850—1860. 

1870—1880. 

Average   lowest 

Average   lowest 

price. 

price. 

.65^ 

.52 

Ab}4 

.35 

1.32 

1.13 

5. 

4.38 

14.31 

12.45 

.08K 

.08 

The  average  lowest  price  of  cotton  from  1855  to  1860, 
6  years,  was  9f  cents  a  pound.  From  1878  to  1883,  6  years, 
the  average  lowest  price  was  10J-  cents. 

I  allow  for  the  difference  in  the  purchasing  power  of 
gold. 

I  do  not  overlook  the  effect  that  increased  production, 
taken  per  capita,  may  have  on  these  prices,  but  without  re- 
citing the  factors  that  a  careful  estimate  would  show  as 
offsetting  this,  the  fact  still  stands  that  the  difference  is 
in  favor  of  the  Democratic  tariff. 

The  truth  is,  the  Republican  tariff  was  framed  at  a  time 
when  the  manufacturing  States  had  complete  ascendency 
in  Congress.  The  South  had,  like  Cataline  leaving  Rome, 
drawn  her  robes  haughtily  about  her  and  retired  from  the 
floor  of  the  National  Council,  to  gird  on  her  armor,  to  beat 
her  pruning-hooks  into  spears  and  her  plow-shares  into 
swords.  The  Young  Giant  of  the  West  had  just  planted 
his  foot  upon  the  western  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  and  his 
eyes  were  still  turned  toward  the  setting  sun  and  the  pur- 
ple mists  that  crowned  the  distant  Sierras.  Texas  was 
given  over  to  the  ranchman  and  the  cowboy.     It  was  but 


natural  that  the  Morrill  tarifl  should  reflect  accurately  the 
interests  of  oSVw  England  and  the  Eaet, 

Bui  the  time  for  a  change  baa  come.  The  people  are 
weary  of  the  bondage.  The  farmer  and  the  laborer,  the 
mechanic  and  the  merchant,  are  demanding  recognition, 

and  they  insist  upon  such  a  change  as  will  rocogni/,i'  their 

interests  and  their  rights. 

The  same  discrimination  which  lias  been  made  against 
the  fanner  has  been  made  against  the  laborer.  It  is  in  the 
name  of  the   mechanic  and   the   citizen   thai    the  most 

approved  claims  for  protection  are  made.     John  ( i.  Carlisle 
in  the  groat  speech  from  which  I  have  already  quoted  says  : 

"The  truth  is  that  the  difference  which  lias  always  existed  and  must  always 
exist  between  the  rates  of  wages  here  and  elsewhere,  constitutes  t In-  princi- 
pal ground  and  about  the  only  plausible  ground  upon  which  protection  can 
be  asked." 

The  adjustment  of  the  details  of  the  tariff  so  as  to  off- 
Bet  this  difference  is  a  principle  recognized  by  the  Chicago 
platform,  and  indeed  it  has  always  been  advocated  by  the 
illustrious  loaders  of  our  party,  both  before  and  after  its 
adoption.  Mr.  Cleveland  has  said  "  we  should  also  deal 
with  the  subject  in  such  manner  as  to  protect  the  interests 
of  American  labor,  which  is  the  capital  of  our  working- 
men.'*  Our  Democratic  nominee  for  governor  said,  in  a 
speech  delivered  at  Cleveland,  Tennessee,  Sept.  10,  1886, 
"  In  short,  the  Democratic  viewr  of  the  tariff  question  is 
this:  A  tariff  suiHcient  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  gov- 
ernment, economically  administered,  and  to  cover  the  dif- 
ference between  the  price  of  American  labor  and  foreign 
labor."  I  have  already  shown  that  this  same  principle 
was  recognized  by  the  earlier  leaders  of  the  party.  But 
whilst  this  has  been  a  principle  with  our  party,  a  straight- 
forward exposition  of  a  simple  and  business-like  proposi- 
tion, it  has  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Republicans  a  web  of 
deception,  a  web  as  curious  and  intricate  as  that  woven  by 
the  Lady  of  Shalott.  You  doubtless  know  the  legend 
which  the  poet  laureate  has  fashioned  into  a  bit  of  Sat- 
suma  china-ware.  The  Lady  of  Shalott  was  a  sorceress 
who  dwelt  in  a  castle  on  the  isle  of  Shalott,  but  by  some 
law  of  her  being  a  curse    would   come  upon   her  if  she 


24 

looked  down  to  the  many-towered  town  of  Camelot.  She 
sat  at  a  window  before  which  was  placed  a  magic  mirror, 
and  in  this  mirror  were  reflected  all  the  sights  and  scenes 
of  the  outside  world.  As  the  mirror  reflected  these  things 
the  fair  sorceress  wove  them  into  a  web  of  many  quaint 
and  curious  colors.  The  shallops  with  their  silken  sails, 
and  the  reapers  that  worked  in  the  harvest,  and  the  clear 
blue  skies,  all  things  fair  and  beautiful  she  wove  into  her 
web.  Now  a  spell  was  on  all  the  country  because  of  her. 
But  one  day  a  knight  rode  by  and  according  to  the  custom 
of  his  order,  he  wore  a  suit  of  armor  that  glittered  in  the 
sunlight.  The  brave  knight  in  the  lightness  of  his  heart 
sang  a  merry  lay  as  he  passed  on  down  to  the  city  of  many 
towers.  The  sorceress  heard  it ;  she  could  no  longer  with- 
stand the  impulse,  and  she  looked  down  to  Camelot.  At 
once  the  mirror  cracked,  the  web  floated  out  of  the  win- 
dow, the  curse  came  upon  the  sorceress,  and  the  spell  was 
lifted  from  the  country.  The  fairy  herself  drifted  down 
the  river  to  meet  her  doom  at  Camelot. 

This,  m}T  fellow-citizens,  is  the  legend  of  the  Republican 
party  and  the  present  tariff.  Let  the -sorceress  weave  on — 
aye,  deftly  draw  and  mix  the  shadowy  threads.  But  I  tell 
her  the  gallant  young  knight  of  Democracy  is  coming  in 
his  noble  pride  and  his  joyous  strength,  he  is  singing  a 
song  that  falls  pleasantly  upon  the  ears  of  the  people,  and  it 
shall  be  heard.  The  spell  shall  be  lifted,  the  mirror  shall  be 
broken,  the  web  shall  be  torn  asunder  and  the  curse  shall 
come  upon  her,  for  in  spite  of  her  arts  and  her  magic 
spells  she  shall  be  forced,  albeit  against  her  will,  to  look 
down  to  the  beautiful  city  with  its  many  towers  which  we 
call  the  city  of  Tariff'  Reform. 

And  yet  it  is  in  the  name  of  American  labor  that  the 
Republican  tariff  has  been  framed.  "  What  crimes  are 
committed  in  thy  name,  oh,  Liberty  !"  and  what  robbery 
is  perpetrated  in  the  name  of  American  labor! 

I  know  of  no  nobler  task  that  could  claim  the  attention 
of  a  legislator  than  to  devise  methods  within  the  limits  of 
law  and  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  to 
ameliorate  the  condition  of  those  whose  lot  has  made  them 


peculiarly  exposed  to  the  attacks  <>f  the  strong,  the  rich 
and  the  unscrupulous.     But  Undoing  this,  no  d  more 

imperative  than  that  of  protecting  well  their  inl 
tihoee  self-appointed  guardians  who.  under  the  form 
law,  plunder  their  wards  to  enrich  themseh 

Lei  me  read  yon  a  lisi  of  the  articles  in  general  use 
among  labor  >ple  and  the  average  ad  valorem  duties 

for  the  year  ending  June  compiled  from 

report  of  the  Chief  of  the   Bureau  of  Statistics,  pre- 
viously quoted   by  me.     A  cheap  hat  76  percent.,  eheap 
on  blankets  71   per    cent.',  fine  woolen   blankets  66, 
ap  flannels  77,  cheap  <\\<  >da  67,  fine  dress  goods 

66,  common  woolen  cloths  89,  ready-made  J>4,  cheap  cot- 
ton yarn  47.  line  woolen  yarn  7".  tanned  leather 20,  gloves 
85,  cheap    plain    bleached  cottons    62,  spool   thread 
earthen  .linen   goods  3r>.  pockel    knife  50,  salt  40, 

sugar  73,  house  furniture  35,  soap   20,  starch    82,  vinegar 
35,  chip  hats  80,  chip  bonnets  30,  needles  35,  buttons  25. 
rticles  you  see  pay  an  average!  duly  of  over  50  per 

If  now  we  examine  into  the  difference  between  home 
and  foreign  wages  we  shall  find  that  I  of  duty  in 

practically  w^vy  case  is  laid,  utterly  without  regard  to  the 
aid.  A  properly  adjusted  tarift  would  equalize 
home  and  foreign  labor,  and  whilst  protecting  the  Ameri- 
can mechanic,  it  would  still  leave  the  manufacturer  liable 
:id  bring  him  within  the  influence  of  a  healthful  corn- 
ion  without  decreasing  the  former's  wages ;  a  properly 
reduced  tar;  If  would  increase  their  purchasing  power.  As 
it  now  stands,  the  difference  between  this  amount  of  duty 
and  the  present  rate  goes  bodily  into  the  pockets  of  the 
manufacturer,  less  the  reduction  in  price  caused  by  home 
competition. 

The  great  fortunes  of  America.  I  imagine.  Were  made 
in  a  large  measure  from  the  financial  operations  and  army 
contracts  of  the  government  during  the  war.  and  from 
rniii'  tock  speculations  since.     But  I  verily  believe 

that  largely  more  than  half  of  our  northern  millionaires 
have  amassed  their  fortunes  from  factories,  upon  whose 


26 

products  heavy  duties  were  laid  to  protect  American  labor* 
Allow  me  to  illustrate  this  by  a  few  well-known  examples. 

According  to  the  census  of  1880,  there  were  253,852 
manufacturing  establishments  in  the  United  States,  and 
the  value  of  their  products  was  $5,369,579,191.  The 
value  of  the  material,  raw  and  otherwise,  worked  up,  was 
$3,395,823,547,  and  the  amount  of  wages  paid  was  $947,- 
953,795.  Subtract  the  wages  paid  from  the  value  of  the 
material  used  and  we  have  a  profit  of  $1,024,801,847,  or  a 
profit  of  very  nearly  20  per  cent,  on  the  entire  production,, 
from  which  would  have  to  come  a  small  per  cent,  for  inter- 
est on  the  plant,  repairs,  and  perhaps  office  expenses. 

The  number  of  laborers  of  all  kinds  was  2,732,595,  and 
dividing  among  these  $947,953,795,  would  give  just  $347  a 
year,  or  $1.16  a  day  as  an  average.  When  capital  gets  an 
average  profit  of  from  15  to  20  per  cent.,  and  labor  gets  an 
average  daily  wage  of  $1.16,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  any  sys- 
tem of  laws  that  brings  this  about  was  made  in  the  inter- 
est of  capital  rather  than  of  labor. 

Take  the  works  which  produce  Bessemer  steel  rails  and 
open-hearths  and  mantel  pieces.  I  quote  from  Mr.  Car- 
lisle's speech  : 

"The  number  of  hands  employed  in  the  Bessemer  and  open-hearth  steel 
works  during  the  census  year  of  1880  was  10,835  >  tne  wages  paid  amounted 
to  $4>93°>349  5  the  amount  of  capital  invested,  including  all  the  real  estate, 
was  $20,975,999;  total  cost  of  material  used  $36,826,928,  and  the  total  value 
of  the  product  was  $55,805,210.  Deducting  the  total  cost  of  labor  and 
materials  from  the  value  of  the  product  there  is  left  the  sum  of  $14,047,933, 
which  is  a  small  fraction  less  than  67  per  cent,  on  the  whole  capital  invested. 
It  thus  appears  that  while  capital  retains  in  its  hands,  after  paying  the  whole 
cost  of  production,  nearly  67  per  cent  ,  labor  received  less  than  9  per  cent, 
of  the  value  of  the  product." 

According  to  the  census  of  1880,  $18  of  labor  will  pro- 
duce $100  of  woolen  goods.  Now  American  woolen  fac- 
tory hands  receive  about  50  per  cent,  more  wages  than 
English  laborers  of  the  same  class.  The  amount  of  duty 
on  this  class  of  goods  ranges  from  50  to  140  per  cent.  As 
a  result  of  the  Republican  tariff,  of  every  100  cents  of  duty, 
the  laborer  gets  18  cents  and  the  manufacturer  the  rest, 
less  the  reduction  caused  by  home  competition.  In  1850, 
under  a  Democratic  tariff,  labor  received  23  per  cent.  In 
1860  labor  received  20  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  man- 


utactuivs  of  the  country.  This  was  under  a  Democratic 
tariff.  In  1870,  under  a  Republican  tariff,  labor'sshare  had 
sunk  to  18  per  cent.,  and  in  1S80  to.  17  per  cent. 

( >n  the  other  hand,  the  percentage  of  profit  to  value  of 
products  went  from  -■'»  per  cent,  in  1850  to  ID  per  cent,  in 
ISvSO,  or  _  per  cent,  more  than  the  percentage  of  wages  to 
value  of  products. 

You  see  now  the  hollowness  of  the  pretense  that  the 
Republican  taritl  is  devised  in  the  interests  of  labor.  On 
the  contrary  it  discriminates  directly  against  both  the 
laborer  and  the  tanner.  I  hope  you  can  now  see  the  dill- 
erence  between  the  Democratic  and  Republican  parties  on 
the  tariff.  If  not,  1  have  spoken  to  but  little  advantage. 
You  also  see,  I  hope,  that  a  reform  of  the  tariff  and  a  pro- 
tection adequate  to  the  necessities  of  the  workingmen  are 
not  antagonistic.  1  have  already  offered  you  some  illus- 
trations of  what  the  Democratic  party  is  trying  to  do  in 
this  matter,  and  before  closing  I  wish  to  take  up  a  few 
articles  and  go  sufficiently  into  details  to  enable  you  all  to 
see  what  line  of  thought  I  would  pursue  if  I  were  to  intro- 
duce a  tariff  bill  in  the  next  House  of  Congress. 

But  before  this,  I  would  like  to  call  your  attention  to  a 
few  of  the  inequalities  to  be  found  in  the  existing  tariff, 
which  is  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made.  I  remember  a 
homely  story  told  by  Hans  Sachs,  the  old  German  verse- 
maker.  It  was  of  a  Strassburg  tailor,  who  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  stealing  pieces  from  the  cloth  brought  him  to 
make  into  suits.  One  night,  in  a  dream,  the  Devil  arose 
before  him,  holding  in  his  hand  a  parti-colored  Hag,  which 
upon  inspection,  the  frightened  scissors-man  discovered  to 
contain  a  bit  of  each  piece  of  cloth  he  had  ever  stolen. 
After  much  penance  and  contrition  he  obtained  forgive- 
ness by  donating  largely  of  his  ill-gotten  wealth  to  the 
poor.  Xow  this  is  an  exact  counterpart  of  the  Republican 
tariff,  and  we  Democrats  intend  to  carry  out  the  illustra- 
tion by  making  such  a  revision  of  the  tariff  as  will  give 
the  poor  at  least  a  more  equitable  division. 

So  numerous  are  the  articles  on  the  present  dutiable  list 
that  the  widest  divergence  of  opinion  exists  as  to  their 


28 

actual  number.  The  general  estimate  heretofore  had  been 
about  2,000.  But  Mr.  Manning  in  his  recent  report  esti- 
mates the  number  to  be  over  4,000.  This  difference  of 
course,  turns  chiefly  upon  nomenclature,  but  both  esti- 
mates give  a  very  clear  conception  of  what  the  tariff 
is.  It  covers  everything  from  chloroform  to  carpets. 
I  have  already  explained  to  you  the  principles  which 
guide  a  Republican  in  tariff  legislation.  I  have  told 
you  that  he  lays  the  heaviest  duties  on  articles  of  gen- 
eral use,  and  that  having  arranged  to  collect  the  reve- 
nue he  needs  to  run  the  government  from  the  fewest 
articles  possible,  he  then  lays  a  prohibitory  tariff  upon 
the  rest.  A  prohibitory  tariff  you  know,  is  one  which 
excludes  all  importation.  Hence  you  will  not  be  surprised 
when  I  tell  you  that,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  duties  have 
been  levied  on  these  two  to  four  thousand  articles,  at  least 
70  per  cent,  of  the  entire  revenue  is  collected  from  six 
classes  of  articles.  This  is  enough  to  stagger  credulit}^ 
but  it  is  true.  Take  the  census  year  of  1880.  In  the  report 
of  the  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  on  our  foreign 
trade  and  commerce,  he  says : 

"The  duties  collected  on  these  six  commodities  and  classes  of  commod- 
ities, viz  :  (sugar  and  molasses,  wool  and  the  manufactures  thereof,  iron  and 
steel  and  the  manufactures  thereof,  the  manufactures  of  silk  and  cotton,  and 
flax  and  the  manufactures  thereof)  amounted  to  $133,580,347.88,  and  consti- 
tuted 69.01  per  cent,  of  the  total  amount  of  duties  collected  on  imports." 

If  you  examine  these  articles  in  detail,  you  will  find  the 
same  glaring  inequalities.  Diamonds  pay  10  per  cent,  but 
the  duty  on  wool  hats  is  prohibitory.  Chocolate  pays  7 
per  cent.,  prunes  pay  25,  but  lead  pencils  56.  Morocco 
skins  pay  10  per  cent.,  but  pocket-knives  50  per  cent. 
Statuary  pays  30  per  cent,  and  salt  in  bulk  85.  Bird  nests 
pay  20  per  cent,  and  steel  rails  61.  This  shows  you  what 
is  meant  by  the  inequalities  of  the  Republican  tariff.  It 
means  that  there  is  a  discrimination  against  the  things 
the  farmer  produces  and  in  favor  of  the  things  he  con- 
sumes. It  means  that  in  the  case  of  the  laborer,  there 
is  a  discrimination  against  the  things  he  uses  and  in  favor 
of  the  things  he  cannot  use. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  present  tariff  is  so  intricate 
and  complicated  that  no  human  ingenuity   can  solve  all 


the  perplexing  problems  which  Arise.    Bait  after  Bail 
been   brought   to   Bettle   diiierences  of  opinion   between 
importers  and   the   Treasury  Department  and   in  one  case 
the  government  iras  compelled  to  refund  about  $2,000. 1 

illegally  collected   upon    sugar.      1    do    not    -ay  it  La  exclu- 
sively 1  ).nioeratie  to  levy  only  specific  duties,  but  I  do  say 

it  is  exclusively  common  sec 

So  monstrous  have  the  oppressions  of  this  truly  remark- 
able tariff  become  thai  an  amused  public  sentiment  has 
forced  itself  upon  the  Leaders  of  the  Republican  party. 
Your  talented  follow-townsman,  Mr.  C.  B.  Simonton,  in 
a  speech  delivered  in  Congress  on  April  6,  1882,  gave  a 
history  of  the  present  tariff.     Among  other  things  he  said : 

••When  the  Republican  party  was  first  struggling  for  supremacy  in  this 
country  it  sought  and  obtained  an  alliance,  not  universal,  but  very  general, 
with  the  protected  classes  of  the  country  by  adopting  as  part  of  its  political 
creed  the  doctrine  of  protection,  and  during  its  continuance  in  power  it  has 
loaded  them  with  extraordinary  marks  of  favor.  In  return  it  has  received 
their  unwavering  and  loyal  support  in  many  a  doubtful  and  bitter  political 
contest.  In  1861,  when  just  seated  in  power,  it  bestowed  its  first  mark  of 
reward  in  passing  the  Morrill  tariff,  and  although  this  act  for  the  first  time 
in  the  history  of  this  country  imposed  double  duties  upon  the  same  article, 
specific  and  ad  valorem,  it  was  followed  five  months  later  (August,  1861)  by 
a  further  increase  of  duties.  In  the  same  year  (December,  1861)  further 
duties  were  laid,  this  time  on  tea,  sugar,  and  coffee;  which  is  one  of  the  few 
instances  where,  under  Republican  rule,  duties  were  imposed  solely  or 
chiefly  for  revenue.  This  was  followed  by  a  general  increase  in  July,  1862. 
On  the  30th  of  June,  1864,  there  was  another  increase,  followed  by  a  still 
greater  one  in  i865~'66.  From  this  time  till  1874  several  modifications  of 
the  tariff  followed,  in  which  duties  laid  purely  for  revenue  were  repealed, 
and  others  on  the  principle  of  protection  were  increased." 

The  Republican  President,  Arthur,  in  his  message  <>f 
December,  1882,  said  : 

44  You  can  not  fail  to  note  with  interest  the  discussion  by  the  Secretary  as 
to  the  necessity  of  providing  by  legislation  some  mode  of  freeing  the  Treas- 
ury of  an  excess  of  assets  in  the  event  Congress  fails  to  reach  an  early  agree- 
ment for  the  reduction  of  taxation.  I  heartily  approve  the  Secretary's 
recommendation  of  immediate  and  extensive  reductions  in  the  annual  reve- 
nues.of  the  government." 

The  result  of  this  agitation  was  the  appointment  by  a 
Republican  president,  under  a  law  passed  by  Republican 
votes,  of  a  Republican  tariff  commission,  who  heard  elab- 
orate testimony  and  who  recommended  a  reduction  aver- 
aging about  24  per  cent.  But  true  to  their  party  precedents, 
the  actual  reduction  made  averaged  not  quite  2  per  cent. 

The  record  of  the  Democratic  party,  both  in  pledges 
and    performances,  is   one  of  unequivocal  tariff  reform. 


30 

During  times  when  there  has  been  no  radical  issue  on  the 
tariff,  the  party  has  always  kept  its  principles  before  the 
people  by  incorporating  them  in  the  party  platform. 
It  has  declared  for  incidental  protection  whenever  the 
revenue  to  be  raised  made  this  possible  or  when  it  has  been 
demanded  by  the  exigencies  of  the  hour. 

Having  read  you  citations  upon  the  principle  of  inci- 
dental protection  and  protection  to  American  labor,  I 
will  now  read  you  extracts  from  the  party  platforms 
enunciating  its  ideas  on  the  subject  of  revenue  in  the 
abstract. 

The  Democratic  National  Conventions  before  the  war 
generally  met  at  Baltimore.  The  convention  of  May  5, 
1840,  adopted  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  "That  it  is  the  duty  of  every  branch  of  Government  to  enforce 
and  practice  the  most  rigid  economy  in  conducting  our  public  affairs,  and 
that  no  more  revenue  ought  to  be  raised  than  is  required  to  defray  the  nec- 
essary expenses  of  the  Government." 

The  convention  of  1844  adopted  the  same  resolution. 
In  1848,  the  same  principle  was  set  forth  : 

Resolved,  "  That  it  is  the  duty  of  every  branch  of  Government  to  enforce 
and  practice  the  most  rigid  economy  in  conducting  our  public  affairs,  and 
that  no  more  revenue  ought  to  be  raised  than  is  required  to  defray  the  neces- 
sary expenses  of  the  Government  and  for  the  gradual  but  certain  extinction 
of  the  debt  created  by  the  prosecution  of- a  just  and  necessary  war,  after 
peaceful  relations  shall  have  been  restored." 

The  convention  at  Baltimore,  on  June  1,  1852,  adopted 
practically  the  same  resolution  : 

Resolved,  "That  it  is  the  duty  of  every  branch  of  the  Government  to  enforce 
and  practice  the  most  rigid  economy  in  conducting  our  public  affairs,  and 
that  no  more  revenue  ought  to  be  raised  than  is  required  to  defray  the  nec- 
essary expenses  of  the  Government,  and  for  the  gradual  but  certain  extinc- 
tion of  the  public  debt." 

The  same  resolution  was  adopted  at  Cincinnati,  1856  ;  at 
Charleston,  1860,  and  by  the  second  convention  that  met 
at  Baltimore,  June  18,  1860.  In  1864,  no  tariff  resolution 
was  adopted. 

The  platform  of  1868,  adopted  by  the  National  Conven- 
tion at  New  York,  has  the  following  tariff  utterance  : 

"  And  a  tariff  for  revenue  upon  foreign  imports,  and  such  equal  taxation' 
under  the  internal  revenue  laws  as  will  afford  incidental  protection  to  domestic 
manufactures,  and  as  will,  without  impairing  the  revenue,  impose  the  least 
burdens  upon  and  best  promote  and  encourage  the  great  industrial  interests 
of  the  country." 


31 

The  Greeley  convention  of  lsyj  refused  to  re-ailirm  the 

doctrine  of  the  party,  hut  relegated  it  to  tin*  people. 

The  St.  Louie  ootiventioD  of  1876, declared  that  custom- 
house taxation  should  be  only  for  revenue,  and  the  Cin- 
cinnati convention  of  1*K0,  declared  for  revenue  only. 

80  much  for  I  >cuiocratic  pledges  !  Let  me  now  show 
you  what  our  party  has  done  to  redeem  them  I  have  no 
hesitancy  in  Baying  that  every  bill  since  the  war,  whose 
distinctive  feature  waa  a  reform  of  the  Republican  tariff, 
haft  been  introduced  hv  a  I  kunocrat,  if  we  except  the  Blaine 
hill  of  1871,  which  came  to  nothing,  and  the  Schenk  bill 
370. 

Mr.  Holmes,  in  1S74.  offered  the  following  resolution  : 

.    "That  in  the  judgment  of  this   i'ouse,  there  is  no  necessity  for 
increased  taxation." 

On  March  29,  1876,  Mr.  Charles  H.  Adams,  a  Republi- 
can, offered  a  resolution  to  this  effect: 

.    "That  in  the  judgment  of  this    House,  legislation   affecting  the 
tarift   is,  at  this  time,  inexpedient." 

This  was  defeated  by  a  motion  of  Mr.  Morrison,  a  Dem- 
ocrat. 

<  Mi  January  12, 1880,  Mr.  Hatch  moved  to  put  salt  on  the 
list.  This  was  defeated  by  the  Republican  party, 
iehl  voting  with  his  party. 

On  March  8,  1880,  Mr.  Sautbrd,  a  Democrat,  offered  a 
bill  "to  reduce  the  tariff*  on  certain  articles  (50  per  cent, 
on  merchandise,  composed  in  principal  part  of  hemp,  met- 
als, wool,  wood  and  cotton)  and  one  to  repeal  the  tariff  on 
printing  type  and  paper,  and  the  materials  entering  into 
their  composition."  By  parliamentary  action,  this  was 
defeated  by  a  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means,  where  it  was  smothered. 

The  Republicans  may  justly  claim  the  reduction  of  1882, 
which  took  off  the  tax  on  matches,  perfumery,  cosmetics, 
bank-checks  and  other  such  kick-shaws. 

The  Morrison  Horizontal  Reduction  Bill  was  a  prepos- 
ue  measure,  viewed  from  the  stand-point  of  practical 
statesmanship,  but  it  was  devised  as  a  measure  of  reform. 
The  recently  defeated  Morrison  Bill  was  a  more  conserva- 
tive and  practical  measure  and  in  spite  of  its  defeat  by 
Democratic  votes,  it  was  distinctly  a  Democratic  measure. 


32 

On  June  5,  1882,  Mr.  Turner,  a  Democrat  from  Ken- 
tucky, introduced  a  bill  placing  trace-chains  on  the  free 
list.  This  was  defeated  by  Republican  votes.  The  knit 
goods  bill  of  the  same  year  reducing  the  duties  on  certain 
classes  of  goods  in  very  general  use,  was  voted  for  by 
an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  Democratic  party  but 
defeated  by  Republican  votes,  aided  by  a  few  stray  and 
recreant  Democrats.  Senator  Bayard  offered  an  amend- 
ment levying  a  maximum  duty  of  25  per  cent,  on  wool 
and  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  manufactures  of  wool, 
which  was  defeated  by  Republican  votes.  Brown  of  Geor- 
gia, and  Yoorhees  of  Indiana,  alone  among  the  Democrats 
voted  against  this,  and  not  one  Republican  voted  for  it. 

Senator  Vest  offered  another  amendment,  placing  salt 
on  the  free  list,  which  was  voted  down.  Brown  of  Geor- 
gia was  the  only  Democrat  voting  against  this. 

Senator  Vest  offered  another  amendment,  reducing  the 
duty  on  blankets  and  flannels,  which  ranged  from  64  to 
104  per  cent.,  to  a  maximum  ad  valorem  duty  of  50  per 
cent.  This  was  voted  down  by  Republican  senators,  every 
Democrat  but  one  voting  for,  and  every  Republican  voting 
against  it. 

It  was  only  in  response  to  a  public  demand  that  threat- 
ened to  take  political  shape,  that  quinine  was  eventually 
placed  on  the  free  list.  On  another  occasion,  Senator  Mor- 
gan of  Alabama  offered  a  resolution  placing  on  the  free 
list  salt,  tea,  coffee,  sugar,  matches  and  tobacco,  which 
was  defeated  by  Republican  votes. 

Is  anything  more  necessary,  my  fellow-citizens,  to  show 
you  that  the  Democratic  party  has  faithfully,  and  in  obe- 
dience to  the  law  of  its  being,  attempted  to  carry  out  its 
pledges  of  reducing  the  unjust  and  exorbitant  burdens 
which  now  rest  upon  you?  I  think  not.  I  hold  that  my 
case  has  been  made  out.  I  hold  that  I  have  proven  two 
facts  so  clearly  that  no  fair-minded  man  can  deny  them. 
One  is  that  the  Democratic  party  is  not  a  free  trade  party, 
and  the  other  is  that  the  Democratic  party  is  not  a  protec- 
tion party — that  is  that  its  sentiment  in  favor  of  protection 
does  not  go  beyond  that  which  is  merely  an  incident  of  a 


revenue  derived  from  a  tariff.  A  mind  just  broad  and  lib- 
eral enough  to  hold  one  idea,  will  not  be  able  to  accept  Che 

two  at  tli.'  same  time.  The  free  trader  will  say  probably, 
that  I  have  made  out  my  case  for  free  trade,  and  the  pro- 
tectionist will  say  1  have  made  <>ut  my  case  for  protection, 
or  rirr-rersa.  But  this  I  have  not  endeavor*  <1  to  do.  My 
endeavor  has  been  to  treat  in  a  frank  and  business-like 
manner  the  question  at  issue,  without  rhetorical  display. 
without  any  mental  shuttling,  without  evasion.  The  sub- 
ject is  a  complex  one.  It  has  many  sides.  K very  moral 
question  presents  but  two  phases — that  which  is  right  and 
that  which  is  wrong.  But  economical  questions  are  ao1 
of  this  nature.  The  moral  looks  to  the  means,  the  politi- 
cal to  the  end.  The  moral  creed  of  Confucius'embraced 
nearly  every  moral  precept  that  has  been  formulated  to  this 
day.  But  think  of  the  systems  of  political  philosophy. 
which  have  subserved  the  ends  of  wise  legislation  daring 
the  progress  of  the  ages,  and  which  have  then  made  way 
for  Other  methods  better  adapted  to  a  hignerroHFe*r*6T  civ- 
ilization and  a  more  advanced  stage  of  progress.  Each 
nation  levies  duties,  not  because  free  trade  is  absolutely 
right,  or  because  protection  is  a  primary  duty  of  govern- 
ment, but  because  those  who  govern  it  see  in  free  trade  or 
protection,  or  some  intermediate  stage  between  the  two. 
that  system  which  brings  the  greatest  good  to  the  great* mi 
number.  Calhoun  began  as  a  protectionist  and  ended  as 
a  tree  trader.  Webster  began  as  a  free  trader  and  ended 
as  a  protectionist. 

At  our  present  stage,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  Democratic 
party  has  wisely  chosen  its  position.  It  stands  upon  the 
platform  that  elected  a  Democratic  President,  and  it  stands 
upon  the  platform  that  brings  us  promises  of  a  happy  and 
prosperous  future. 

But  I  promised,  before  closing,  to  give  you  a  few  prac- 
tical illustrations  of  such  features  as  I  would  attempt  to 
incorporate  in  a  tariff  bill  were  I  to  introduce  one  in  the 
next  House  of  Congress.  Only  do  not  imagine  that  I 
intend  to  introduce  one,  for  a  new  member  is  apt  to 
accomplish  but  little  initiatory  legislation.    But  I  do  prom- 


34 

ise  to  look  closely  after  this  matter,  and  I  promise  you 
some  exhibitions  of  stubborn  opposition  to  any  tariff  bill 
that  does  not  sufficiently  consider  the  interests  of  my  con- 
stituents. 

I  should  first  demand  a  radical  reduction  of  prohibitory 
duties  in  particular  and  a  reduction  of  duties  generally. 
In  doing  this  I  would  take  such  steps  as  would  enable  the 
agricultural  classes  to  make  their  crd|>s  as  cheaply  as  pos- 
sible. I  would  then  try  to  give  their  products  such  a  rate 
of  duty  as  would  afford  them  the  greatest  amount  of  pro- 
tection, realizing  that  this,  at  the  best,  would  be  very 
small. 

I  would  then  try  to  so  adjust  the  tariff  duties  as  to  give 
to  those  industries  which  are  just  beginning  to  spring  up 
in  the  South  a  fair  share  of  protection.  In  cases  involv- 
ing a  sacrifice  of  one  of  two  industries,  I  shquld  insist  on 
sacrificing  the  older  and  more  experienced  establishments 
of  the  North,  which  are  no  longer  infant. 

I  would  insist  that  a  sufficient  rate  of  duty  be  retained 
to  equalize  home  and  foreign  labor. 

Perhaps  some  one  would  ask  me  if  I  think  it  possible  to 
accomplish  all  these  things  at  one  time.  If  so.  I  would 
say  in  reply  that  I  have  my  doubts,  but  certainly  they 
could  all  be  approximated.  As  Sir  Philip  Sidney  nobly 
said,  "He  who  aims  at  the  moon  will  shoot  higher  than 
he  who  aims  but  at  a  hedge.*' 

To  accomplish  this,  I  would  first  make  out  a  free  list  on 
which  I  would  place  salt,  cotton-ties,  trace-chains,  plows, 
harness,  agricultural  implements,  seeds  for  agricultural 
purposes,  bags,  bagging,  rope,  and  wire  for  fencing,  both 
iron  and  steel,  barbed  and  unbarbed.  I  would  make  these 
changes  slowly  and  by  gradual  stages.  Of  course,  plac- 
ing some  of  these  articles  on  the  free  list  and  not  also  the 
raw  material  out  of  which  they  are  manufactured,  would 
raise  a  Cape  of  Good  Hope  storm  among  some  of  the 
manufacturers,  but  it  would  be  simply  reversing  the  rule 
which  has  heretofore  obtained.  It  would  disarrange  some 
industries,  but  it  would  enable  the  farmer  to  make  his 
crop  without  paying  for  the  privilege.     It  would  throw 


tome  laborers  out  of  employment,  bu1  certainly  not  more 
than  could  easily  find  other  and  profitable  employment, 

I  would  thru  take  up  articles  «»t'  general  consumption 
atul  I  would  bring  abOul  a  radical  reduction  in  the  amount 
of  tarifl  levied  on  them. 

Cheap  wooTen  goods,  including  flannels,  wool  bats, knil 
ds,balmoral8,etc'.,  valued  at  80  cents  a  pound  and  under, 
which  now  pay  72  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  I  fro u Id  reduce  to 
60  per  cent.,  then  to  SO  £er  cent,  and  thereafter  to  40  per 
.•••nt.  During  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  •"»u.  L886,  the 
amount  oi"  revenue  derived  from  this  source  was  $l,478,!,,,v. 

It    has  been    the   history   of  all    tariff    legislation   since  the 

time  «»t'  sir  Robert  Peel,  that  the  reduction  of  high  imporl 
duties  on  any  article  of  necessity  increases  the  revenue 
derived  from  thai  source^  This  reduction  on  cheap  blank- 
ets would.  1  firmly  believe,  double  or  treble  the  amount  of 

revenue  paid  in  1885  fchd'er  the  present  rate. 

1  would  next  take  cotton  goods.  Cotton  is  our  stap 
and  Upon  this  hangs  more  largely  our  prosperity  than  upon 
any  other  one  thing.  It  is  toward  the  manufacture  of  cot- 
ion  that  Southern  skill  has  been  turning  its  attention,  and 
it  has  been  the  products  of  our  cotton  factories  that  have 
most  successfully  competed  with  the  North.  Home  com- 
petition has  bo  reduced  the  price  of  common  goods  that 
the  products  of  our  mills  sell  here  as  cheaply  as  those  of 
Manchester  in  English  markets.  New  England  manufact- 
urers are  beginning  to  demand  a  freer  trade  in  these  things, 
and  this  is  a  responsive  effect  of  Southern  competition. 
Therefore  I  see  no  disadvantages  which  result  to  the  con- 
sumer from  these  rates.  I  also  see  no  advantages  which 
result  to  the  manufacturer.  It  has  been  claimed,  and  with 
tow  of  justice,  that  the  tariff  simply  enables  Amer- 
ican mill>  to  tide  over  times  of  trade  stagnation,  when  the 

_  i>h  manufacturer-  would  be  enabled  to  temporarily 
flood  the  American  market,  shutting  up  American  mills, 
toil  proportionately  their  prices  immediately  upon 

a  revival  of  trade. 

Under  th.   present  tariff,  cotton  thread  and  yarn,  valued 
at  from  under  25  cents  up  to,  but  not  exceeding,  60  cents 


36 

a  pound,  pay  an  estimated  average  duty  of  43  per  cent. 
The  amount  of  revenue  derived  from  this  source  in  1885 
was  $109,004.66.  These  are  the  threads  that  go  chiefly  into 
the  manufacture  of  coarse  and  cheap  cotton  cloth,  and  as 
matters  stand,  they  yield,  in  comparison  with  other  articles, 
a  respectable  amount  of  revenue.  I  would  leave  them, 
therefore,  untouched.  The  Northern  demand  for  a  decrease 
of  duty  on  them  is  in  order  to  look  for  this  class  of  goods 
to  England,  where  they  would  find  a  cheaper  market  than 
in  Tennessee  or  Georgia. 

But  let  us  in  this  instance  leave  matters  where  they 
stand.  Our  arguments  in  favor  of  this  proceeding  we  get 
from  Northern  writers  and  speakers.  It  may  look  a  little 
like  protection,  and  it  may  come  in  conflict  with  the  Dem- 
ocatic  doctrine,  that  a  man  should  not  be  prevented  from 
buying  in  the  cheapest  market  he  can  find. 

But  my  principle  is  to  begin  in  this  reform  at  the  other 
end  of  the  line.  When  it  gets  to  my  end  I  shall  be  very 
tractable.  In  this  matter  I  feel  as  I  did  once  at  a  school, 
where  the  buckwheat  cakes  at  breakfast  had  a  vicious 
and  confirmed  habit  of  giving  out.  I  sat  at  the  end  of 
the  table,  opposite  the  beginning  point,  and  I  was  rather 
fond  of  buckwheat  cakes  too.  Being  admonished  that 
these  things  could  not  be  helped,  that  I  must  bear 
them  with  patience,  I  suggested  that  it  would  help  me  out 
in  the  attempt  considerably,  if  the  waiter  would  begin 
at  my  end  sometimes. 

I  think  the  reform  of  the  tariff  could  be  proceeded  with 
in  much  the  same  way.  This  same  class  of  goods  valued 
at  from  sixty  cents  to  a  dollar  a  pound,  pay  an  average 
duty  of  50  per  cent.  In  1885  they  paid  a  revenue  of 
$53,214.33,  or  about  half  as  much  as  the  cheaper  grades. 
These  I  would  reduce  to  an  average  of  35  per  cent  On 
cheap  cotton  cloths,  bleached  and  unbleached,  I  would 
make  no  changes.  On  cheap  cotton  cloths  dyed,  col- 
ored, stained  or  printed,  I  would  make  a  reduction  rang- 
ing from  5  to  10  per  cent.,  according  to  the  value,  and  the 
number  of  threads  to  the  square  inch.  Articles  of  cloth- 
ing made  of  cotton  I  would  reduce  to  30  per  cent.; -they 


lmw  pay  from  85  to  W  per  rent.  On  laces,  Iftce  window 
cm-tain-,  lace  trimmings,  and  the  like,  on  which  the  duty 
is  now  i<i  per  cent.,  I  would  increase  the  duty  to  first 
K>  per  cent.,  and  then  •"><'  per  cent  ,  until  1  had  reached 
the  point  of  maximum  revenue.  The  duty  on  Icnil 
is  now  about  \{)  per  cent.  1  would  leave  the  duty  on  this 
unchanged  ;  also  the  fluty  ou  Btoc  hi. h  is   i<»  per 

cent.,  and  which  lasl  produced  a  revenue  of 

12,198,468.86.  The  duties  on  hemp,  flax  and  jute  goods, 
which  pay  a  general  duty  of  about  l(»  per  cent.,  I  would 
leave  as  now,  except  bags  and  bagging  for  cotton,  which  I 
would  place  on  the  free  list  ;  and  embroideries  which  I 
would  increase  from  :'^  per  cent,  to  80  per  cent  Women's 
and  children's  Woolen  dress  goods,  which  pay  now  < > T  per 
cent.,  1  would  gradually  reduce  to  40  per  ceut.  Ami 
ready  made  clothing  of  wool,  which  now  pays  55  per 
cent..  1  would  reduce  also  to  40  per  cent.  The  present 
duties  on  Axminster,  Brussels,  tapestry  Brussels,  velvet, 
and  other  fancy  grades  of  carpets,  I  would  leave  unchanged 
or  slightly  increase  a  cording  to  the  necessities  of  the 
revenue.  Treble,  ingrain,  three  ply,  and  worsted  carpets, 
which  n»>w  pay  a  duty  of  44  per  cent.,  I  would  gradually 
decrease  to  ;,><>  percent.  On  the  chemicals  in  common 
use,  on  which  the  duty  ranges  from  40  to  220  per  cent,  I 
would  make  radical  reductions.  leads  and  artificial  How 
ers  pay  50  per  cent.,  meerschaum  pipes  pay  70  per  cent.: 
I  would  leave  this  unchanged,  Wooden  pipes  pay  70  per 
cent  :  I  would  reduce  till-  to  35  per  cent.  Sardines  pay 
_'7  per  cent  :  these  1  would  leave  unchanged.  Almonds 
and  nuts  generally  pay  about  ">-  per  cent  ;  these  1  would 
leave  unchanged.  Common  window  glass,  which  now 
pays  from  53  to  87  per  cent.,  according  to  size.  1  would 
reduce  to  40  percent  Common  gunpowder }  would  re- 
duce from  46  per  cent,  to  4o  per  cent.  On  boilerplates, 
cast-iron  pipes,  hair-pins,  hollow-ware,  scrap-iron,  wrought, 
steam  and  gas  tubes,  cutl  Lies,  and  the  manufac- 

tures el  and  iron  generally,  1  would   make  small  and 

gradual  reductions,  the  duties  upon  them  ranging  now 
from  43  per  cent,  to  155  per  cent.  The  duty  on  corn 
starch, which  is  85  per  cent.,  I  would  reduce  to  35  percent. 


38 

This  will  give  you  an  idea  of  what  I  mean  by  tariff  re- 
vision. I  have  not  mentioned  the  difference  in  the  price 
of  wages,  as  in  no  instance  do  I  believe  that  I  have  sug- 
gested Buch  a  rate. of  duty  as  would  affect  this  difference. 
When  I  speak  of  the  difference  of  wages  I  do  not  refer  to 
the  labor  which  does  not  compete  with  ours,  such  as  that 
of  China,  India,  etc.,  but  of  the  skilled  labor  of  Europe. 
It  will  also  be  seen  that  I  have  advocated  a  gradual  reduc- 
tion in  the  rates.  The  essential  requisite  of  all  tariff  reduc- 
tion is  that  it  should  be,  as  Carlisle  expressed  it,  a  reform, 
not  a  revolution.  L  wish  to  close  by  mentioning  a  few 
things  which  I  would  not  place  on  the  free  list. 

I  would  not  place  hemp,  jute  and  similar  articles  on  the 
free  list.  1  would  not  place  bristles  on  the  free  list,  as  Mr. 
Randall  did  in  his  recent  tariff  bill.  I  would  not  place 
logs,  manufactured  wood,  staves,  all  varieties  of  sawed 
lumber,  cross-ties,  raw  wood,  hemp,  jute,  sisal  grass  and 
other  vegetable  substances  on  the  free  list,  as  Mr.  Mor- 
rison did  in  his  recent  tariff  bill. 

Neither  would  I  place  coal  and  iron  ore  on  the  free 
list,  as  Mr.  Hewitt  and  the  Massachusetts  manufacturers 
wish  to  do,  now  that  our  mines  have  made  these  things 
cheap  to  us  and  dear  to  them,  and  affected  unfavorably 
their  ability  to  keep  down  Southern  competition.  On  these 
two  articles  more  than  any  other  depends  the  industrial 
regeneration  of  the  South.  I  am  willing  to  advocate  a 
radical  reduction  of  this  most  undemocratic  tariff.  I  am 
willing  to  meet  half  way  any  spirit  of  mutual  concession 
in  the  adjustment  of  those  details  of  the  tariff  which  affect 
local  interests  variously,  but  I  am  not  willing  to  begin  the 
reduction  by  taking  up  the  very  articles,  the  duties  upon 
which,  after  a  century  of  oppression,  have  finally  turned 
to  our  advantage.  I  wish  to  say  here,  I  wish  to  say  to  my 
fellow  citizens  of  the  State,  to  the  on-coming  race  of  the 
entire  South,  that  the  duty  which  now  exists  on  these  arti- 
cles, coal  and  iron  ore,  is  the  very  ark  of  our  salvation. 
Mr.  Morrison  placed  these  two  articles  on  the  free  list  ot 
his  recent  tariff  bill.  At  once  an  earnest  protest  went  up, 
and  in  Tennessee  and  Alabama  especially,  a  cloud  came 


up  from  the  sea.     Bu1  'n  uever  gathered  to  a  storm,  for  id 
ansv  ommittees  from  all  parts  of  the  country,  these 

two  States  especially,  Mr,  Morrison   removed   them   from 
his  free  list  and  Lefl  them  on  the  dutiable  List. 

The  recenl  cry  for  free  raw  material,  insofar  as  L1  tends 
to  cheapen  the  oecessities  of  life  and  to  lessen  the  burdens 
axation,  is  one  thai  meets  my  hearty  approbation.  Bui 
when  it  simply  mean-  thai  the  Northern  manufactm 
have  grown  restive  under  a  collar  which  baa  been  sailing 
us  for  bo  long  a  time,  the  inconveniencies  of  which  the} 
are  jusl  beginning  to  feel,  then  I  am  frank  to  say  it  does 
not  appeal  bo  directly  to  any  spiril  of  liberalized  statesman- 
ship on  my  part.  The  time  has  come  when  the  duty  on 
.  which  nt-  a  ton,  does  uol  affecl  us  one  cent  a 

ton.  [f  it  were  on  the  free  lisl  it  would  not  change  the 
price  i"  asone  penny  a  year,  bul  it  would  enable  Northern 
mills  to  buy  it  cheaper  than  they  now  can,  and  it  would 
injure  both  the  products  of  our  own  mines  and  the  advan- 
tages in  competition  which  we  reap  from  its  greater  cheap- 
10  ns.  which  in  a  measure  offsets  the  greater  skill  of 
the  North. 

In  1880  Tennessee  produced  only  78. nun  tons  of  pig  iron. 
In  1883  this  had  gone  up  to  138,000  tons.  This  year  Maj. 
A.  .1.  McWhirter,  the  energetic  and  efficient  head  of  our 
Agricultural  and  Mining  Department,  estimates  the  out- 
put a1  328,000  tons.  This  gives  as  cheap  fuel  and  cheap 
iron  and  the  resultant  advantages  in  competition.  The 
building  of  the  Memphis  and  Birmingham  Railroad  will 
pour  these  two  articles  into  Memphis  in  rich  abundance, 
and  with  smoke  ascending  from  factories  located  on  her 
every  running  stream,  with  an  abundance  of  cheap  fuel 
and  cheap  iron.  Wesl  Tennessee  will  soon  rake  her  place 
at  the  very  head  of  the  advancing  column  which  is  mov- 
ing onward  toward  our  Promised  Land. 

Let  us  reform  the  tariff,  bu1  let  us  also  exercise  thai  char- 
ity which  begins  at  home.     Let  us,  within  the  limits  of  a 
revenue  tariff,  give  to  Southern  industries  and  Southern 
products  a  fair  portion  of  those  advantages  which,  hpw- 
!•  unjustly,  always  flow  from  any  form  of  protection. 

The  principle  of  protection   to  infant  industri 

ed  by  many  of  the  most  radical  i'vw  trade  advocates. 
Now  of  all  industries  in  the  world.  1  know  of  none  thai  stand 
so  much  in  need  of  the  bottle  as  those  of  the  South.  The 
present  rates  of  duty  are  sufficient  for  this  purpose.  We 
have  a  right  to  demand  that  they  be  not  disturbed  for  the 
present. 


40 

I  think  now,  my  fellow  citizens,  I  have  gone  over  the 
whole  field,  as  nearly  as  I  have  been  able.  Not  stopping 
with  generalities  which  are  vague,  or  that  class  of  statistics 
which  are  vaguer  still,  with  which  both  free  traders  and 
protectionists  prove  unanswerably  their  side  of  the  case,  I 
have  tried,  by  what  figures  I  have  adduced,  to  make  clear 
the  real  Democratic  position  on  this  vexed  question. 

I  think  I  have  answered  those  who  taunt  us  with  having 
adopted  a  straddling  platform  at  Chicago,  because  it  did 
not  declare  for  either  extreme.  Nature  is  filled  with  com- 
promise, and  harmony  itself  is  only  one  of  its  forms.  As 
is  well  known,  the  great  river  that  washes  the  western  bor- 
ders of  this  county  is  not  navigable  at  certain  seasons  of 
the  year  above  a  certain  point,  and  it  overflows  its  banks 
at  other  seasons  of  the  year  below  a  certain  point.  The 
work  which  is  now  being  done  by  the  river  commission  in 
the  case  of  the  Mississippi  River,  is  the  work  which  the 
Chicago  platform  proposes  to  do  in  the  case  of  the  tariff. 
It  avoids  the  low  stage  of  free  trade  which  would  strand 
the  great  barges  of  commerce,  and  it  seeks  to  keep  within 
their  banks  the  high  protective  rates  of  the  Republican  tariff 
which  overflows  at  times,  carrying  ruin  and  destruction  to 
all  the  country  through  which  it  flows.  I  hold  that  there 
is  a  just  medium  between  low  water  which  is  not  naviga- 
ble and  an  overflow. 

A  tariff  has  been  compared  to  an  intoxicant.  Is  there 
no  intermediate  stage  between  the  sobriety  of  Gough  and 
the  delirium  tremens?  Cannot  a  man  look  at  life  from 
the  smiling  standpoint  of  an  appetizer  before  dinner  ?  Be- 
tween the  frigid  zone,  with  its  desolation  of  icebergs  and 
its  white- coated  bears,  and  the  terrific  heat  of  the  equator, 
has  not  nature  girdled  the  earth  with  the  temperate  zone 
as  with  a  ribbon  of  bright  colors  and  exquisite  workman- 
ship ?  Do  we  not  find  in  all  this  that  which  gives  the  world 
its  onward  impetus? 

My  fellow  citizens,  it  is  only  those  who  can  not  and  will 
not  understand  the  subject  who  declare  that  the  Chicago 
platform  is  ambiguous.  To  my  mind,  it  is  one  of  the  finest 
pieces  of  political  mechanism  I  have  ever  known,  and  it 
appeals  to  the  conservative  judgment  of  the  great  masses 
of  the  American  people,  by  its  perfect  adaptation  to  the 
needs,  requirements  and  exigencies  of  the  hour. 

Allow  me,  in  closing,  to  thank  you  for  your  patient 
attention,  which  I  know  I  have  sorely  tested. 


m<  ago  pl'-'-y 
ft  avoids   tne 
[he  great  b&rf 
[heir  banks  tl 
which  overflc 
^  the  count n 
:ust  medi 
\<1  an  o 

•■■tf  li 


